Oral Answers to Questions

TREASURY

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

Stability and Growth Pact

John Burnett: What representations have been made in respect of recent changes to the stability and growth pact.

Kelvin Hopkins: What assessment he has made of the economic implications of non-compliance by member states in the euro-zone with the stability and growth pact.

Gordon Brown: I have received no recent representations on the stability and growth pact, but when I attended the ECOFIN meeting in Brussels on Tuesday it was agreed to invoke the excessive deficit procedure with respect to Portugal. Since 1997, the Government have consistently supported a prudent interpretation of the pact that takes into account the economic cycle, sustainability and the important role of public investment. We continue to discuss this with our European Union colleagues.

John Burnett: Portugal, Germany and France are all in breach, or about to be in breach, of the pact's deficit limit. Does the Chancellor believe that there is an urgent need for reform of the pact and that, until that reform has been implemented and the stalled Lisbon agenda has been satisfactorily concluded, it would be reckless to recommend to the British people that we join the single currency?

Gordon Brown: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is speaking for his party. It is correct that the excessive deficit procedure has been started in relation to Portugal. It is possible that it may be started in relation to Germany, and probable that not an excessive deficit procedure but an early warning procedure may be adopted in relation to France.
	Since 1997, we have always taken the view that the pact contains three elements that need reform. First, it should take more account of the economic cycle. I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree with that. Secondly, countries with a high level of debt should be treated differently from countries with a low level, and a country—there are three of them—with debt above 100 per cent. of gross domestic product should be treated differently from countries such as ours, with debt of less than 40 per cent. of GDP. Thirdly, there is public investment: we believe that, as long as they have a sustainable debt level, those who are investing for the future should be in a position to continue to do so. We continue to discuss those changes with our EU colleagues. I hope that there is consensus in the House that those reforms are needed.

Kelvin Hopkins: My right hon. Friend will know that, following the meeting on Tuesday, some of us were concerned about the decisions that were made. Given that Germany is teetering on the brink of dangerous deflation, would not forcing the Germans to intensify that deflation by further fiscal tightening drive them into recession, and would not that cause a crisis in the euro zone as a whole? What would the implications for Britain be; and does he agree that Romano Prodi's description of the pact as Xstupid" is something of an understatement?

Gordon Brown: Adjectives are widely used these days in a pejorative sense, be it Xstupid" or Xnasty", or any other such word. I would refrain from using such adjectives. The point of our proposed reforms is to be able to distinguish between structural and cyclical deficit. That is part of the debate about the German position: whether the deficit is structural or cyclical. There is absolutely no doubt that we face a world downturn. This is the first synchronised world downtown for 30 years, seriously affecting every continent. It is also true that we suffer from the fact that, while in the last recession world trade went down by only 1 per cent., and it grew by 13 per cent. two years ago, it has been stagnant last year and this year, creating difficult conditions for all countries.
	On my hon. Friend's point about the stability and growth pact, we should be in a position to distinguish between structural and cyclical deficits, and I hope that he will agree that action is needed for a structural deficit, but that for a cyclical one we can consider the cycle and what is likely to happen over a number of years.

John Bercow: Given that the Chancellor has no objection in principle to ceding sovereignty over monetary policy to the European Central Bank, which we do not elect and cannot remove, and which, under the terms of the treaties, it would be illegal to seek to persuade to the view of the British Parliament, why does he think that, when he claims to believe that this country should retain control over tax and expenditure decisions, we should believe a word of what he says?

Gordon Brown: It is interesting to note that the hon. Gentleman has moved to the Back Benches to say exactly what he said on the Front Bench. I thought that he was going to take a distinct position. It is Parliament that makes decisions on taxation and spending; it is Parliament that made its decision on the Maastricht treaty. The Maastricht treaty contained all the terms under which the stability pact now operates, including the requirement to submit convergence plans and the requirement to avoid excessive deficits, and the measures that might be taken in respect of that. It was Parliament that voted in favour of that—and the House should know that the shadow Chancellor was a member of the Cabinet that put those proposals to Parliament.

Denzil Davies: Is it not the case that not only the growth and stability pact but the whole Maastricht enterprise, and the common monetary policy established by it, are flawed? Is that not evidenced by what is happening in Germany, where a democratically elected Government have no jurisdiction over the value of the currency, no control, in effect, over public expenditure, and no jurisdiction over interest rates?

Gordon Brown: My right hon. Friend, who was a Minister in the Labour Government of the 1970s, has at least been consistent in this: he opposed the Maastricht treaty and he continues to oppose it, unlike many Conservative Members, who brought in the Maastricht treaty but now wish to oppose its provisions.
	As for what my right hon. Friend says about the economy, being part of a monetary union involves a number of changes in the way we operate. That is exactly why we have submitted the proposal to the five economic tests. The tests will examine the effect on investment and employment, and the effect that arises from the flexibility of the British and the European economy to deal with problems such as those that we see at the moment, and others that can arise from time to time. They will also examine the sustainability of convergence.
	I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree that this is the most detailed exercise that has been conducted by the Treasury—an exercise that was never conducted when the previous Government took this country into the exchange rate mechanism—[Interruption.] I can find almost no evidence of any work having been done in the Treasury on the economic issues—[Interruption.] I think, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I always worry when the Chancellor starts to lean on the Dispatch Box, because it means that his reply is getting very long.

Michael Howard: Can the Chancellor tell us where in his five tests we find a reference to the difficulties caused by the stability and growth pact?

Gordon Brown: The five tests look at all those issues. They look at investment, employment and flexibility—and if the right hon. and learned Gentleman reads the submission that I made to the Treasury Select Committee, he will see that we consider specifically the issues of the stability and growth pact, and will publish a paper on the subject as part of the five tests. The question that the shadow Chancellor has to answer is why he once supported the stability and growth pact, yet now, for purely party political reasons, he opposes it.

Michael Howard: It is for the Chancellor to answer questions, and he has not been able to point to a single reference to the stability and growth pact in the five tests. Are not the difficulties of the pact caused in large part by the inappropriateness of the Xone size fits all" interest rate for so many economies in the euro zone? Has the Chancellor seen the study by the European Commission that showed that the single interest rate was too low for seven countries in the euro zone and too high for another three, which made it about right for just two countries?

Gordon Brown: The shadow Chancellor is entirely wrong. The evidence that I put to the Treasury Select Committee says specifically—[Interruption.] The shadow Chancellor is asking for this to be one of the tests—in other words, he wants a sixth test. What I am saying to him is that, as part of the five tests, when we consider employment, investment, flexibility and durability, we will be examining the operation of the stability and growth pact. [Interruption.] If he has any doubt about that, I will send him this afternoon the memorandum that we sent to members of the Treasury Select Committee—I see one member of the Select Committee nodding at that, because he knows it to be the case—saying that we would publish a paper on the stability and growth pact as part of our assessment of the five tests. There are five tests, not six, but as part of the five tests, which include employment, investment and flexibility, we shall look at the macroeconomic issues—[Hon Members: XOrder!"] The idea that we have not submitted evidence to the Treasury Select Committee saying that that is part of the review is completely wrong, and the shadow Chancellor will have to withdraw his allegation.

Dennis Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend ignore the bleating of the Liberal Democrats, who have been Euro-fanatics from the very beginning? Will he ignore the rants of the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, who condemned the current Leader of the Opposition when they were uniting and dying over Maastricht? Will my right hon. Friend also keep finding excuses for not going into the euro? He has managed that for five years—good luck to him.

Gordon Brown: We will publish the assessment that we are making of the five economic tests. It is serious, detailed and rigorous, and the most comprehensive piece of work that the Treasury has done. It will look at all the relevant issues, as the five tests make absolutely clear, and the House of Commons will have the fullest chance to debate the issues.

Climate Change Levy

Andrew Selous: What recent discussions he has had with manufacturers about the effect of the climate change levy on UK competitiveness.

Dawn Primarolo: The Government have regular discussions with business about a wide range of issues, including matters related to tax.

Andrew Selous: Will the right hon. Lady tell the House whether the Government are considering the proposals of the Engineering Employers Federation, which would not only help the environment more quickly, but would be less burdensome to business? Is she aware of the extreme difficulty caused to Linpac, a manufacturer in my constituency, which has had to move two of its moulding machines to Spain, where neither the climate change levy nor anything similar operates—a move that was demanded by one of its major customers? When the company briefed the Chief Secretary on the matter, he apparently turned to his officials and said, XOh, it wasn't supposed to operate like this." What does the right hon. Lady have to say about that?

Dawn Primarolo: I am aware of the report that the hon. Gentleman refers to. As he will know, the initial report on the introduction of a climate change levy was undertaken by Lord Marshall. He recommended, and the levy went on to include, two principles: that the revenues from the levy would be recycled, and should be broadly revenue neutral; and that specific issues should deal with energy-intensive industries where they are subject to international competition. The levy undertakes both of those arrangements.
	The hon. Gentleman will also know that the amount of revenue that is recycled to business—as a result of enhanced allowances, or the Carbon Trust, or directly through the national insurance rebate—is greater than the amount that the levy raises. The suggestions in the recent report confirm, therefore, that the Government are going in the right direction. However, they rightly raise issues that the Government need to scrutinise closely as the climate change levy beds in.

Barry Sheerman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the climate change levy is a very important environmental tax, and that getting it right is important? I was pleased to hear her comments on that point, but does she also agree that we need a range of innovative environmental taxes that help industry to do the right thing, and that have the right touch? Will she continue with the environmental taxation review, and introduce measures in the near future?

Dawn Primarolo: I can of course confirm that the climate change levy contributes to the Government's programme in committing ourselves to reach our Kyoto targets. I should also remind my hon. Friend that, before the levy's introduction, there were some two years of consultation with business. That consultation continues, but, as he rightly says, climate change is a threat now, and we cannot wait for solutions tomorrow. We need to move forward on these issues, and the climate change levy is an important aspect of that agenda.

Michael Howard: Is the Paymaster General proud of the fact that this Government have managed to combine the anti-competitive impact of the climate change levy with an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, as was recently pointed out by Friends of the Earth? Has she read the recent remarks of Digby Jones, Director General of the Confederation of British Industry, who said that the levy is
	Xdamaging key sectors of the UK economy, driving jobs abroad, [and] has become a great friend to our French and Spanish competitors?" Is that the Government's intended consequence of this bungled tax, or was the Chief Secretary right in what he said during a visit to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous)?

Dawn Primarolo: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentlemen will be aware that at least seven other member states in the European Union have comparable measures and that others are moving to introduce them, precisely because we need to address the issue of climate change. As Lord Marshall's report clearly pointed out, the climate change levy includes reductions to assist energy-intensive industries that are subject to international competition. What the right hon. and learned Gentleman has to tell the House is whether he is serious, as the spokesman for the Opposition, about tackling climate change. If he is, how should it be done? Will he tell us whether he is prepared to commit himself now, or will it be another promise for tomorrow?

Waste Recycling

Alan Whitehead: What appraisal he has made of the case for the introduction of an incineration levy to encourage future re-use and recycling of waste.

John Healey: The Government announced in the Budget 2002 that they would consider the case for a tax on incineration in the light of the strategy unit waste project, which is due to be completed later this autumn.

Alan Whitehead: Will my hon. Friend also appraise the large, long-term contracts being entered into by local authorities that centre on waste incineration? When he considers such a levy, will he address how it might help local authorities move beyond their reliance on such contracts?

John Healey: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend as one of the House's renowned experts on the subject and I thank him for his question. The need to minimise the production of waste and maximise the re-use and recycling of waste is at the heart of our waste policies. Technologies, including incineration, have a role to play in recovering value from waste, whether through recycling, composting or energy from waste, as my hon. Friend's question suggests. We will consider the specific questions he raises, and also the general questions, in light of the waste report that the Prime Minister's strategy unit is currently completing and which we expect to be able to publish shortly.

Mark Prisk: Why is it that whenever the possibility of improving business behaviour arises, the Government's knee-jerk reaction is always to increase the number or rate of taxes? Is not this an opportunity to reduce taxes to encourage behaviour?

John Healey: We have cut corporation tax, capital gains tax and small business tax. On the incineration tax, I made it clear in my original answer that the Government have agreed to consider the case—no more, no less—for a tax on incineration as part of the long-term waste management policies that we need to put in place.

Nick Palmer: Does my hon. Friend agree that important though this issue is, the problem partly arises because of the sheer amount of packaging and unnecessary extra material that is thrust on consumers, whether we want it or not? Will he consider a levy on packaging or other ways to discourage firms from generating unnecessary waste with which consumers have to grapple?

John Healey: We have no plans to introduce or consider such a tax. The specific questions and the wider long-term aims of our waste policies will be considered in the light of the strategy unit's report, which is currently being completed and which we expect to be able to publish shortly.

Gross Domestic Product (East Sussex)

Charles Hendry: What his latest figure is for the GDP of East Sussex; and what this is as a percentage of (a) the mean GDP across the country and (b) the highest GDP for a county.

Ruth Kelly: The latest sub-regional GDP data relate to 1998 and show that the GDP of East Sussex at current basic prices was #3,850 million. That represented 0.5 per cent. of total GDP for the UK. It is not meaningful to calculate mean and highest levels of GDP for counties, as counties vary in size.

Charles Hendry: The Financial Secretary will be aware that East Sussex's GDP per head is the third lowest in the country, below Liverpool, Newcastle and Glasgow. The Government's plans for local authority spending could result in East Sussex losing #44 million a year, despite its GDP level. Will the hon. Lady therefore have urgent discussions with her ministerial colleagues to make sure that they understand that any system designed to make local government funding fairer—a Government objective—should assist poorer counties rather than penalise them?

Ruth Kelly: Perhaps I could point out that East Sussex has benefited from this Government's policies: unemployment has fallen by 46 per cent. in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and, as a result of personal tax and benefit measures since 1997, pensioners will be #1,150 better off on average by October of next year.
	I do accept that we are not prepared to ignore pockets of deprivation in areas of prosperity. That is why we are committed to balanced regional economic growth, and why we are funding the regional development agencies at an average rate of 4.5 per cent. in real terms over the next few years. We are working extremely closely with the south-east economic development agency to make sure that East Sussex benefits from a major regeneration programme over the next 10 years.

HIPC Initiative

Jenny Tonge: If he will make a statement on the outcomes of the World Bank and IMF meeting in September in relation to debt relief and the HIPC initiative.

Gordon Brown: At the recent IMF and World Bank meetings in Washington, we agreed up to $1 billion of further debt relief for poor and indebted countries. I am pleased to announce that the UK has been joined by 16 other donors, which have already made firm commitments totalling $850 million to the HIPC trust fund. European Union member states have called on the Commission to make a contribution through the European development fund. That will benefit 26 highly indebted poor countries. Of the remaining 12 countries that could qualify for debt relief, nine are unfortunately in conflict, one has opted for debt relief, and two are developing their poverty reduction strategies to meet the conditions for debt relief.
	We thank the Churches, faith groups and non-governmental organisations for the contribution that they have made to the debt relief campaign, but we are determined to build a longer-term solution to the financing of education, health and anti-poverty programmes in the poorest countries.

Jenny Tonge: I thank the Chancellor for that reply. At the risk of sending Tory Members into orbit, I freely acknowledge that the progress that has been made on this matter has been due largely to his efforts. However, does the Chancellor realise how disappointed people in the country are that more progress has not been made since the millennium? According to the organisation Jubilee 2000, the cancellation of debt for the 26 HIPC countries would cost around $6.8 billion over five years for the countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. That is probably less than the US spent on bombing Afghanistan. Will the Chancellor put pressure on the World Bank and the IMF at least to suspend debt repayment—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady may have been slow to start, but she is certainly making up for it now.

Gordon Brown: I want to thank all those in the House who have joined us in the campaign to secure debt relief. The figures show that $62 billion of debt will be wiped off as a result of the initiative so far. If other countries join the initiative, that total should amount to $100 billion. That is a very considerable figure, involving 26 countries, and it is yielding money for education, health and anti-poverty programmes. However, I readily accept that there is more to do. That is why we are considering, with other countries, further measures in addition to debt relief that can yield results both in terms of expenditure on education, health and anti-poverty programmes, and in terms of meeting the millennium development goals, which include ensuring that every child has an education.

Andy Reed: I am sure that the whole House welcomes the moves that have been made to progress this matter, largely thanks to the moral lead that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has taken. However, does my right hon. Friend accept that the collapse of commodity prices has caused real problems for many countries already in the HIPC initiative and receiving debt relief? What further measures can he take to ensure that those countries' future levels of sustainable debt are tied into the collapse of commodity prices? Will he assure the House that the $1 billion extra that has been promised will be new money and will not merely replace money that should have come from multilateral creditors such as the IMF and the World Bank?

Gordon Brown: The extra $1 billion is necessary precisely because of the economic conditions in poorer countries, and because in the first round of the HIPC trust fund we underestimated what would be needed to pay for the debt relief that has been provided. It is new money, and is being allocated by this Government and other Governments. As I said, 16 Governments have joined the initiative, and that is huge progress on where we were a few months ago.
	Again, I readily accept that if we are to deal with the problems of poor countries and their agricultural producers, we need a wider settlement—a wider compact between rich and poor countries that involves not only debt relief but the opening up of trade, tackling agricultural protectionism and help for public and private investment in those countries. We also need substantially greater resources in overseas development aid.

Stephen O'Brien: As the Chancellor well knows, I greatly sympathise with his efforts on the HIPC initiative. Given the Prime Minister's humiliating failure, however, even to know of in advance—let alone to prevent—the French and Germans stitching up a cosy deal between themselves on the common agricultural policy, the right hon. Gentleman will surely agree that that self-serving deal has done, and for years to come will do, much more damage to the economies of the developing world than anything that he might do to relieve poor countries' debt under the initiative. How happy is he that the Prime Minister has not taken any action to remedy the situation when one of his Treasury officials has said that every cow in the EU receives over $2 a day from Brussels, while a fifth of the world's population lives on only a dollar a day?

Gordon Brown: Those figures have been put out by me and by other people in the past year. We have to get action on the common agricultural policy. At the summit, a ceiling was agreed on the amount of money available for agriculture. Contrary to the wishes of some countries, what was left open was that further progress would be made at Doha and in the mid-term review of agricultural policy. I should have thought that the Conservative party would have supported the Prime Minister's efforts in that respect. These matters are open for Doha. We now need all parties to combine to make a success of Doha and persuade other countries that we must curb agricultural protectionism.

Julia Drown: What are the Government doing to put pressure on non-participating countries to get involved in the HIPC process—countries such as Romania, Iran and Libya? Are the Government offering support to the HIPCs that face legal challenges from those who are not participating in the HIPC process?

Gordon Brown: On the legal issue, we are looking into that matter. We had a list of the 37 countries, I think, that would qualify for HIPC debt relief. I have named the countries that have already benefited. Equally, those that are in conflict cannot benefit while they are in conflict. When countries are coming out of conflict, we have measures to enable them to get debt relief quickly if they pursue the necessary policies and if we can be sure that the money is going to poverty reduction. The three remaining countries, which do not include those on the list that my hon. Friend mentioned, are now part of the HIPC process and should be able to get debt relief readily and quite quickly.
	As for adding others to the list, I do not think that that is the way forward; it is a more comprehensive solution to what levels of development aid we can get. That requires us to have policies that link improvements in access to trade, improvements in investment in the poorest countries, an end to the agricultural protectionism that is doing so much damage, and far more overseas aid. That is the way to deal with the problems of the countries that my hon. Friend mentioned.

Manufacturing Output

Archy Kirkwood: What assessment he has made of the change in output of manufacturing industry since January 2001; and if he will make a statement.

Paul Boateng: The contraction in United Kingdom manufacturing output, which began last year, was due to the sharpest slowdown in G7 industrial activity since 1975, but UK economic fundamentals remain sound and our macroeconomic framework leaves us well placed to respond to those challenges. The Government will publish an updated assessment of prospects for manufacturing in the forthcoming pre-Budget report.

Archy Kirkwood: Does the Minister accept that whatever success the Government may have achieved in other parts of the economy, the deep and abiding recession in manufacturing is a matter of continuing concern? Does he also accept that in the past four years, an estimated 500,000 jobs have been lost across the United Kingdom? In my constituency in the Scottish borders, the number of people employed in manufacturing has fallen by 23 per cent. since 1995. Would it not be right for the Treasury team to engage in an onslaught on exchange rate policy rather than on the unemployed, to ensure that there are some manufacturing vacancies in prosperous businesses for job seekers in the future?

Paul Boateng: There has undoubtedly been a decline in manufacturing across the G7. We are seeking to ensure that Scotland benefits not only from the macro-economic measures that we have taken, but from micro-economic measures such as the improvements that we have made in the climate for research and development, and the steps that have been taken with the Scottish Executive to promote enterprise and manufacturing in Scotland. In 2001–02, that led to 61 new inward investment projects being created in Scotland—the equivalent of more than 6,000 new jobs. We intend to continue to work with the Scottish Executive to that end. That is the best hope for the hon. Gentleman's constituents, and for the people of Scotland and the United Kingdom generally.

Ross Cranston: Manufacturing has taken a knock in the west midlands as well as in Scotland. However, does my right hon. Friend agree that short-term fixes such as fiddling with the exchange rate are not the way to deal with this? The Government have addressed the long-term approach to productivity by improving research and development as well as average skill levels.

Paul Boateng: Low inflation, low interest rates and good, solid macro-economic foundations are, as my hon. and learned Friend accepts, the best hope for British industry. However, the important steps that we are taking, not least in relation to research and development and to science and technology, stand in marked contrast to the successive failures of Conservative Members over the years in their stewardship of the economy.

Matthew Taylor: Does the Chief Secretary accept that manufacturing employment has gone up in the euro zone since 1997 while plummeting by 500,000 in this country since 1997? Does the Chief Secretary think that that is simply down to bad British business or that it might relate to Government policy, which has seen exchange rates remain uncompetitive, investment at record low levels and the longest manufacturing recession since 1981? As the Monetary Policy Committee has not been able, in a two-track, two-speed economy, to cut interest rates today, what do the Government plan to do with the rest of the policy armoury to help them?

Paul Boateng: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's figures will stand up in Germany or bring much comfort there. Comparing our performance with that of the rest of the G7 shows that we have the highest employment rates and the lowest unemployment rates. That is a direct result of the policy of this Government and of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Peter Pike: Does my right hon. Friend agree that aerospace is a crucial, high-skill and high-value industry to Lancashire, the north-west and the country as a whole? It has been hit particularly hard since 11 September last year. Will my right hon. Friend stress to the industry that the Government will give the maximum support possible to encourage research and development and training? They are crucial and, at a time when the industry is being squeezed, they should not be squeezed. In that way, we will ensure the future of the industry to the benefit of the country.

Paul Boateng: My hon. Friend's interest in the aerospace and high-tech industries in his constituency and throughout the north-west is well known. We meet regularly with the aerospace industry. Recently, I visited the north-west and spoke with the vice-chancellors of the three major universities there. They are all working in close contact with the industry and the regional development agency. They are benefiting from our proposals not only on science and technology but on the additional funding for the RDA and the important bedrock that we have put in place for long-term research and development, particularly in large companies, and they will continue to benefit.

Bob Spink: Is the Chief Secretary aware of the importance of the construction products industry, which is a full 20 per cent. of the total British manufacturing sector? Will he ensure that the Government deliver their promises in the public sector by building the schools, hospitals and road infrastructure that they promised in their public spending review and are way short on delivering, so that the construction products industry can benefit?

Paul Boateng: I take that as a request from the hon. Gentleman for yet more investment in the public sector, but that rings pretty hollow given the Conservatives' record. They failed to invest in our infrastructure and in our schools and hospitals. While they are talking about it, this Government are doing it.

Bill O'Brien: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the large manufacturing losses in the Yorkshire region occurred because the mining machinery industry there has declined considerably? Will he favourably consider help for the mining industry to maintain its current output, which in turn will help to sustain the manufacture of mining equipment and machinery in the Yorkshire area, thereby saving jobs? Will he also accept my appreciation for the work that he and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor have done to help manufacturing in the Yorkshire region?

Paul Boateng: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know that he takes a keen interest not only in mining but in manufacturing, research, development, science and technology throughout his region. Our best hope for maintaining and developing the manufacturing base of his region lies in the encouragement of IT and innovation. That is the Government's commitment, and it will endure.

Pensions Taxation

Andrew Robathan: What assessment he has made of the impact of recent changes in pensions taxation.

Ruth Kelly: From April 2002, as a result of the Government's personal tax and benefit changes, pensioner households are, on average, #840 a year better off than in 1997.

Andrew Robathan: But is it not the Chancellor's policies that have so badly harmed people's private pensions and indeed their future in retirement, especially the fact that more than #25 billion has been taken out of pension funds—#5 billion a year since the abolition of advance corporation tax relief?
	Can the Minister confirm leaked reports from the Labour spin machine that the Chancellor plans further harm to people's pensions and futures by ending higher-rate tax relief on pension contributions and by taxing lump-sum payments on retirement, which are currently tax free?

Ruth Kelly: The hon. Gentleman wholly misrepresents the situation. As he knows, and as has often been pointed out to the House, the abolition of payable tax credit was an essential part of wider corporation tax reforms, which included cutting both main and small company corporation tax rates. Since 1997, cuts in corporation tax have been worth more than #3.5 billion a year to companies, and pension funds benefit from that as well.
	In relation to some of the measures that the hon. Gentleman cites, about which there has also been much speculation in the press, the Treasury has said repeatedly on numerous occasions that no proposal for the abolition of higher-rate tax reliefs has even been considered by Treasury Ministers, never mind agreed.

John Robertson: My hon. Friend will be aware of the high number of pensioners in my constituency, where there are well over 13,500 pensioner households. I thank my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for the work that he has done to alleviate pensioner poverty, but will he reconsider the winter fuel allowance that people in my constituency receive in wintertime when it is needed the most? Will he consider upping it by #50 to #250 as soon as possible?

Ruth Kelly: I thank my hon. Friend for his support. Unlike the Conservatives, the Government have made tackling pensioner poverty a priority. We introduced not only the #200 winter fuel allowance, but also free eye tests for the over-65s. Furthermore, next year, we shall introduce the pension credit, which will reward the savings of low-income pensioners. I take my hon. Friend's question as a Budget representation and as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is here, I am sure that he will have listened to it.

Stephen O'Brien: How can the Minister claim that the pension dividend tax has nothing to do with pension scheme closures? When Labour came into office, no large company schemes were closed to new entrants, but only five years later—a short time in the long-term business of pension provision—we have moved to a situation where the main pension schemes of fewer than half our largest companies are open to new entrants. How can the Chancellor and the Minister claim that those two events—the Chancellor's largest-ever stealth tax and the rapid closure of schemes—are not related? Is he the only person in the country who does not understand that if one takes #25 billion from pension funds and continues to take money at the rate of #5 billion a year it will have an effect on pension funds and schemes?

Ruth Kelly: Let me take this opportunity to put the facts that the hon. Gentleman mentions in context. The abolition of payable tax credits, for example, was equivalent to the difference of a tenth between the best and worst pension fund providers. I hardly think that he can criticise that measure when he knows that it is also being offset by a huge package of corporation tax cuts. He points to the closure of final salary schemes. Clearly, changes are taking place right across the world, partly as a result of changing work patterns, which mean that the structure is changing, but what really matters to people is the level of pension contributions going into pension funds. That is why we are working in partnership with the industry, employers and individuals to ensure that people can have the security of knowing that they have secure income in retirement.

Tax Credits (Publicity)

Russell Brown: What steps he is taking to publicise the new tax credits.

Dawn Primarolo: We carried out a series of national road shows from 16 September to 11 October to highlight the launch of the tax credits campaign and to publicise the new tax credits. That includes the Inland Revenue sending out claim forms automatically to all existing claimants of working families tax credit and disabled person's tax credit. It also includes a national advertising campaign, which started on 16 September, including television, radio, press and online advertising and specific measures to ensure that minority groups are aware of the new tax credits. That involves planning publicity specifically for ethnic minority radio stations and publications.

Russell Brown: I thank my right hon. Friend for what she has done until now and, obviously, for what she will do in the coming weeks and months, but may I draw her attention to the current tax credits? Undoubtedly, hundreds of thousands of families have benefited from the working families tax credit, but I have some concerns about the uptake of the child care tax credit. I feel that more families should have become involved in it because not only is it an opportunity to provide finance to assist with child care costs, but I firmly believe that it is an opportunity to develop child care services in many places, particularly rural areas. May I ask her to put more emphasis on developing child care services and the support that the Government offer for that?

Dawn Primarolo: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that about 170,000 families who currently receive working families tax credit are benefiting specifically from the support to assist in the payment of child care expenses, but I also know, because he has raised this before in the House, that he shares my concern about the inflexibility of the current arrangements. The new tax credits will ensure that we will be able to respond as child care needs and costs change, rather than fixing things for a specific period.
	With regard to the supply of child care professionals, my hon. Friend will also have noted that, in this year's spending review, my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary have allocated substantial funds for future expenditure on child care to train, employ and provide new child care centres for working parents.

David Laws: What action is the Minister taking to end the subtle pressure that seems to be being applied to many people to receive their tax credits through bank accounts, rather than over the counter at post offices?

Dawn Primarolo: There is no subtle pressure. The new tax credit legislation, supported by the Liberal Democrats, specifically included an arrangement whereby the new tax credits could be paid directly into families' bank accounts. That is a very useful way, first, to ensure that the right person gets the right amount of money and, secondly, to assist in reducing the fraud that, unfortunately, has been causing considerable difficulties with giros and order books. Having completed the entire legislation on tax credits, I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman now say that, apparently, the Liberal Democrats will change their minds on that principle.

Frank Roy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the working families tax credit form is fundamentally flawed and therefore open to abuse? Is she aware, for example, that to receive money for a year, claimants need only insert the registration number of an after-school care project, often without the knowledge of that provider? Will she investigate that abuse before it spreads throughout the country?

Dawn Primarolo: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I know that he is keenly aware of the difficulties in ensuring that payment of child care tax credits is made to the right people. I reassure him that applications for payment of child care expenses will be rigorously scrutinised to ensure that the expenditure has been incurred and that the payment goes to the child care providers.

Julian Lewis: Will the statement on the pre-Budget report, which is eagerly anticipated, be an opportunity to clarify, if not modify, the situation on tax credits? Will the Minister therefore tell the House when the statement is finally to be made?

Dawn Primarolo: If the hon. Gentleman has seen the TV advertising campaign or taken the opportunity to read the pack that I sent him, he will be fully familiar with the tax credits, and he will be actively campaigning in his constituency to ensure that people receive those resources. As the advertising says, this is money with families' names on it, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will help his constituents to get it.

Tax Credits (Publicity)

Helen Jackson: What proposals he has to reduce the tax liabilities of pensioners.

Ruth Kelly: We will increase the age-related personal allowances above inflation. As a result, from 2003-04, no pensioner aged 65 or over will pay tax unless their income reaches #127 a week.

Helen Jackson: I am grateful to the Minister for her answer. Does she recognise that pensioners who have saved throughout their working life or paid into an occupational pension fully support the proposal for a pension tax credit, which may reduce many pensioners' tax liability, but the level of awareness about what the proposal may mean for them in the next tax year is very low? What will my hon. Friend do to ensure that there is a significant increase in that awareness over the next six months?

Ruth Kelly: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is fully aware of the need to promote the eligibility for the pension credit as widely as possible. That will be done, first, by ensuring that people know in good time that they may be entitled to it. Secondly, to ensure maximum take-up, the Government will run a wide-ranging campaign in which we will not only work with the media but avail ourselves of the knowledge of local agencies and partners.

David Cameron: Given that interest rates and annuity rates are very low and that the Government have made a raid on pension funds, does the Minister think that there is any merit in cutting the tax rate on pensioners' savings, particularly as it is usually money that they saved during their working life and on which they have paid tax?

Ruth Kelly: Most pensioners pay no income tax at all. Indeed, this Government introduced the 10p tax band, which was raised above the rate of inflation in the last Budget, taking another 3 million pensioners out of tax. I have already explained to the House that we are increasing the age-related personal allowances, and, next year, bringing in the pension credit to reward low-income pensioners. We are maximising the incomes of pensioners, particularly those on low incomes. Unlike the Conservative party, the Government are putting the abolition of pensioner poverty at the forefront of our efforts to increase pensioner incomes.

Fiona Mactaggart: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is widespread confusion among pensioners and the rest of us, who will be pensioners one day, about how pensions are paid for? I refer, for example, to the deferred taxation on pension contributions and the working of the pension tax credit. Will she run a public education campaign designed to inform not only current but future pensioners about the financing and taxing of pensions so that people can plan properly for their future, which many currently do not do?

Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. At the moment, the complexity of the pension regime—not just in the rules for operation of pension funds but in the taxation system—makes it extremely difficult for low-income people to access financial advice, and even for those who can access financial advice to be fully aware of their opportunities and obligations in the future. We are determined to simplify the system to maximise the information available to individuals and employers to exercise their responsibilities. That is why we shall publish later this year a Green Paper that will open up broad discussion about how people can achieve a secure and adequate retirement income. That is also why, in that Green Paper, we will report on the three reviews that we have commissioned: the Ron Sandler review, which looks at the role of saving in general; the Pickering review from the Department for Work and Pensions, which looks at pension simplification and the rules attached to that; and the review of pension taxation that has been undertaken by the Inland Revenue.

Small Businesses

Gregory Barker: What recent representations he has received on how his policies are affecting small businesses; and if he will make a statement.

John Healey: The Chancellor regularly meets small business leaders and receives a large number of written representations on small business concerns.

Gregory Barker: Can the Economic Secretary tell the House what are the latest indicators for business start-ups in the United Kingdom?

John Healey: We have published this week the latest figures for business start-ups, nationally and in every part of the country. If the hon. Gentleman wants to complete the briefing that he normally uses, may I also point him to independent international studies that consistently show that the UK now has one of the most enterprise-friendly environments in the world and one of the best business tax regimes in the European Union? As Minister with responsibilities for Customs, may I also point him to some of the measures introduced recently in my area to relieve the costs in time and money for small businesses in complying with taxation legislation and responsibilities?

Anne Campbell: Is my hon. Friend aware that small businesses in my constituency are very supportive of the moves that have been made in recent years to increase the science and technology budgets and the innovation budgets? If he would like to consider how that has affected small business in practice, I would encourage him to visit some of the small manufacturing companies in my constituency, especially those doing innovative work with digital printing, which have a great future in front of them.

John Healey: I am grateful for the welcome that small companies in my hon. Friend's area have given, particularly to the new measures that the Government have put in place to support long-term investment in research and development and science and technology. That will be a crucial part of meeting the productivity gap and the challenge that the UK faces to close the gap with our competitor countries and to ensure that small business start-up rates, not just in my hon. Friend's constituency but across the country, are boosted, so that the survival rates of those small firms are boosted, too. I welcome her kind invitation to visit firms in her constituency, and I shall consult my diary manager on possible dates.

John Baron: Given that the Institute of Directors has recently calculated that the annual cost of employment regulations has risen by #6 billion during the last five years, what is the Economic Secretary's response to small businesses in my constituency that say that it is becoming increasingly difficult to do business and that they are having to move their manufacturing base abroad?

John Healey: The real cost of administering employment and other regulations is a fraction of the figure that the hon. Gentleman cites. We are ready to have a serious debate about regulation, but that debate must be based on fact and not on rhetoric. We have demonstrated since 1997 that we are ready to cut regulation when there is a good case for that. For example, we have raised the threshold for statutory audit, saving small companies #180 million a year, and we have cut and simplified the regulations on the minimum wage, saving small firms #100 million a year.
	However, the reality is that there is an important role for regulation. It is part of ensuring that this country has fair competition and fair protection for employees. I take it from what the hon. Gentleman said that he is against the national minimum wage, against paid holidays and against the right for people to attend to family crises. However, provisions for all that have been introduced under this Government.

Iraq (Security Council Resolution)

Jack Straw: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about negotiations on a new United Nations Security Council resolution in respect of Iraq.
	A revised draft resolution was circulated to all members of the UN Security Council yesterday. The council is now discussing the text and will vote on it shortly. A vote could come as early as tomorrow night. As we will prorogue later today, I wanted to update the House now as the negotiations are entering their final stage. I have placed a copy of the joint United Kingdom-United States draft in the Libraries of both Houses.
	As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reminded the House yesterday, our overriding objective is to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction through an effective inspections regime. The Prime Minister and I have made the case for UN action here in the House, to our allies and to the wider world. On 10 September, my right hon. Friend told the Trades Union Congress conference that the UN had to be the means of dealing with this problem, not of avoiding it. Two days later, President Bush, in his historic speech to the General Assembly, said that the UN had either to enforce the writ of its own resolutions or risk becoming irrelevant. On 14 September, in the same forum, I called on the UN to meet the challenge posed by Iraq and to defend its own authority.
	As one of the five permanent members of the Security Council, the UK has been determined to ensure that the UN emerges from this crisis with its credibility enhanced. During the negotiations, our aim has been to secure consensus on a tough resolution that leaves Iraq under no illusions about the need for disarmament. The text currently before the Security Council is the product of eight weeks of intensive negotiations. The United Kingdom and the United States began to circulate elements of a draft resolution to fellow Security Council members on 25 September, and a draft full text on 23 October.
	Throughout these two months, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has spoken to President Bush and other Heads of Government at regular intervals. I have been in daily contact with the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and I have had detailed discussions on numerous occasions with my French, Russian and Chinese counterparts and with Foreign Ministers of the elected 10 of the Security Council. Our UN ambassador, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, and his team have worked tirelessly in New York.
	The draft resolution uses the full powers of the UN under chapter 7 of its charter. The architecture of the draft has been extensively discussed between the permanent members, and I would like now to set out for the House the key points.
	First, the text makes it clear in operative paragraph 1 that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under previous Security Council resolutions. Secondly, in operative paragraph 2, the text affords Iraq a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations. Thirdly, it stipulates that false statements or omissions in Iraq's declaration of its weapons of mass destruction holdings and failure by Iraq to comply with the resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations, and provides that this will be reported to the council for assessment. Fourthly, the text gives significantly enhanced powers to the United Nations Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency to conduct effective, intrusive inspections.
	Right hon. and hon. Members may be surprised by the level of detail in the resolution, but our experience with Saddam Hussein has made that necessary. I draw particular attention to the following aspects of the resolution: the provision for conducting interviews with Iraqi citizens inside or outside Iraq, without the presence of Iraqi Government minders; the explicit setting aside of previous arrangements that restricted inspectors' access to so-called presidential sites; provisions for freezing a site to be inspected so that nothing is changed within it nor taken from it while it is being inspected; and making legally binding the Xpractical arrangements" set out by the inspectors themselves and covering issues such as regional bases, the right to encrypted communications, and so on. In sum, it is a basis for an inspection regime designed not to go through the motions, but to achieve disarmament.
	The text sets out the procedure to be followed in the case of failure by Iraq to comply: it requires in operative paragraph 4 that any further material breach of Iraq's obligations should be reported to the Security Council. It directs in operative paragraph 11 the executive chairman of UNMOVIC and the director general of the IAEA to report immediately to the council any interference by Iraq with their inspection activities or failure to comply with its disarmament obligations. It provides in operative paragraph 12 that the council will convene immediately on receipt of a report of non-compliance in order to consider the situation.
	On timing, the text provides that within seven days of adoption of the resolution Iraq must confirm its intention fully to comply; that within 30 days Iraq must submit a full and accurate declaration of all aspects of its WMD programmes; that within 45 days inspections should resume; and that within 105 days of the passing of the resolution UNMOVIC and IAEA should report to the Security Council. The text concludes by underlining that Iraq has been repeatedly warned that it will face serious consequences as a result of continuous violations of its obligations.
	I emphasise again that the detailed wording may change further in negotiation; discussions will resume this afternoon in New York. However, this draft resolution meets the United Kingdom's objectives. It takes into account many points raised in the Security Council by other member states and by the chief inspectors, Mr. Blix and Mr. El Baradei. We are now seeking unanimous support for the resolution in order to send the strongest message to Saddam Hussein.
	Britain wants a peaceful resolution to this crisis, and the United States has shown by its engagement in the long negotiations over past weeks that it too is committed to using the UN route in order to resolve this problem. At this point, I should like to pay my own tribute to President Bush and to United States Secretary of State Powell for their great patience and great statesmanship.
	History tells us that if diplomacy is to succeed it must be combined with the credible threat of force. As Kofi Annan has said, with direct reference to Iraq:
	XWe have learned that sensitive diplomacy must be backed by the threat of military force if it is to succeed."
	It is that threat which, in recent weeks, has forced Saddam to concede the prospect of readmitting weapons inspectors. The more credible the threat, the more likely it is that Iraq will respond to the demands of the UN.
	As the negotiations at the Security Council enter their final stage, we are approaching a critical moment for the whole of the international community and for the integrity of our system of international law. By adopting the resolution, the Security Council will send the clearest possible signal of its determination to uphold the authority of the United Nations, and we will be one step closer to resolving a problem that has undermined the security of Iraq's neighbours, and the wider world, for more than a decade. The task of the inspectors is to find and to destroy the weapons of mass destruction. The choice for Saddam Hussein is to comply with the UN or face the serious consequences.

Michael Ancram: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for giving me sight of it in advance.
	We congratulate the United States and United Kingdom Governments on the resolution, and I recognise the Foreign Secretary's contribution to it. We hope it will secure the support of the Security Council and not be vetoed by any permanent member. This is a test of the determination of the United Nations to deal with the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of unstable, undemocratic, despotic and aggressive regimes. If the resolution were to fall because of the veto of permanent members with political or commercial interests in so vetoing it, the integrity of the United Nations would be seriously damaged.
	The resolution sets out clearly the requirements that Saddam Hussein must fulfil if he is to rectify what the resolution describes as the
	Xmaterial breach of its obligations under relevant Resolutions".
	Those resolutions, which together would achieve the central objective of the elimination of his weapons of mass destruction, are already in place. The resolution stipulates the timetables within which the various requirements must be met and rightly indicates serious consequences for non-compliance. We also strongly welcome the commitment to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq.
	Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the resolution must leave no room for doubt or manoeuvring in the mind of Saddam Hussein? There are a number of matters on which the resolution could be still clearer, which I hope he will clarify. Do the words in paragraph 2—
	Xa final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations"—
	mean that in the event of non-compliance no further resolutions will required before appropriate action can be taken? Is it implicit in the resolution that action is already justified by the existing and continuing material breach of Iraq's obligations? What happens if, after seven days, Saddam Hussein has not unambiguously confirmed his intention to comply with the resolution? That does not seem to be covered in paragraph 12.
	Who judges under paragraph 3 whether any disclosure of weapons and missiles is full and final given that previous disclosures by Iraq have subsequently been admitted to have been inaccurate? What account has been taken of the use of the past eight weeks by Saddam Hussein to hide his weapons of mass destruction, which was alluded to in the dossier published in September, and what measures are being taken to counter that? What happens if, after the 105 days to which the Foreign Secretary referred in paragraph 5, no weapons of mass destruction have been found but there remain indications that they exist?
	Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the reference in paragraph 12 to restoring Xinternational peace and security" must be read in conjunction with article 42 of chapter VII of the United Nations charter, which states:
	Xaction can be taken by air, sea or land forces as may be necessary to . . . restore international peace and security"?
	What will the Government do if the resolution is vetoed? What preparations is the right hon. Gentleman making to have a full debate on the subject in Government time when the House returns?
	The message of resolution and, I hope, the message of the House to Saddam Hussein must quite simply be:
	XYour weapons of mass destruction must go. You can do it yourself or it will be done for you."

Jack Straw: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his generosity in what he said about the work done in the United States and here, including by me?
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about a veto. We are not anticipating a veto of the resolution, and I do not want to anticipate that. Nothing is certain until the matter is put to a vote, but we have worked hard over the past eight weeks to bring our colleagues in the P5 and the elected 10 to a clear consensus not on a mushy resolution, but on a clear-cut resolution that sets out the clearest possible obligations on Saddam Hussein. Every Foreign Minister to whom I have spoken in the past eight weeks agrees that the best chance of resolving Saddam Hussein's defiance of the international community lies in the international community showing the greatest degree of unanimity—and toughness.
	The right hon. Gentleman asks a series of questions about the Xfinal opportunity" mentioned in operative paragraph 2. The draft resolution is structured to tell Saddam Hussein, in operative paragraph 1, that
	XIraq has been and remains in material breach";
	operative paragraph 2 states that this is Xa final opportunity"; operative paragraphs 3 to 10 set out how Iraq has to fulfil what is described euphemistically as an
	Xopportunity to comply with its . . . obligations";
	under operative paragraph 11, the inspectors are under a duty to report to the Security Council if they come across any breach; and under operative paragraphs 4 and 11, the Security Council can—and will—resume its meetings to consider the circumstances if there is a breach.
	I do not want to anticipate what will happen if there is a breach, except to say that although we would much prefer decisions to be taken within the Security Council, we have always made it clear that within international law we have to reserve our right to take military action, if that is required, within the existing charter and the existing body of UN Security Council resolutions, if, for example, a subsequent resolution were to be vetoed. However, I do not believe that it will come to that.
	The right hon. Gentleman asks about the 105 days. There is a clear requirement on the inspectors to report within 105 days, but that, as Sir Jeremy Greenstock made clear yesterday, does not mean that the inspections end when the 105 days have elapsed.
	The right hon. Gentleman asks about article 42 of the UN charter. The whole resolution, if it is passed, has to be read against the background of the UN charter.
	Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asks whether I am making arrangements for a full debate in Government time. The answer is yes, and we hope that it will be on a substantive motion.

Alan Beith: May I offer apologies on behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell)? He had an unavoidable appointment in Scotland today.
	I welcome the Foreign Secretary's statement about a debate on a substantive motion, which would lead to a vote in the House of Commons on this matter.
	I welcome the progress that the Foreign Secretary and British officials have made on the resolution. I share the hope for a successful outcome leading to inspection getting under way with the clear intention of removing Iraq's programme for weapons of mass destruction.
	Recognising that it was Kofi Annan who referred to the threat of force being essential to the success of diplomacy, which we know to be true in the case of Saddam Hussein, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Security Council remains central to the consideration of whether the use of force is required; and that the inspectors and, indeed, interested states are required to report any breaches by Iraq to the Security Council for its consideration?
	Although it is welcome that US spokesmen appear in the past few days to have backed away from the idea that regime change can be the objective of or justification for military action, does the Foreign Secretary recognise that there is still widespread anxiety across a broad range of opinion in this country that, fortified by the Republicans' electoral success, those elements in the US Administration who favour unilateral action may again come to the fore? Will he maintain Britain's commitment to an approach that has UN Security Council backing and the best prospects of securing continued international support?

Jack Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks.
	The United Nations remains central to consideration of this issue. We have been working hard to ensure that the UN stays involved and enhances its credibility and effectiveness. I repeat: any decisions that we make in respect of military action will be made within the context of the body of international law, of which Security Council resolutions form a part, but not the whole.
	The resolution does not deal with regime change: it deals with Saddam Hussein's flouting of Iraq's obligations in respect of its weapons of mass destruction. However, we need to be aware that the Iraqi regime is one of the most revolting regimes in the world.

Alan Beith: That is not justification for military action.

Jack Straw: It is one of the most revolting regimes in the world. I look forward to the international community being more effective than it has been in, for example, dealing with the flagrant violation of human rights within Iraq, which has been going on for the past 12 years.

Bruce George: At the risk of being seen as sycophantic, which I am not, may I express my delight and relief that the United States has been prepared to persevere through the Security Council route, which may minimise the risk of a military solution?
	I ask my right hon. Friend to give us a little more information about what he thinks the phrase Xserious consequences" may be. Has that been discussed? Is there some form of continuum of potential serious consequences that may run from a slap on the wrist, to a fine or military action?

Jack Straw: My right hon. Friend should not worry about being sycophantic for a second. It is a perfectly honourable position to adopt.
	I know that there is some scepticism about this among some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, but it is right to applaud the work of President Bush and his colleagues in the US Administration. They had the power to go down the unilateralist route, and there was nothing that the international community could have done about that. They made a choice to stick with the multilateralist UN route, and we should applaud them for that and for what President Bush has done to enhance the system. As for my hon. Friend's specific question, Xserious consequences" means serious consequences up to and including military force.

John Maples: The Foreign Secretary has brought us welcome news, but I think that the House should face the high probability that military action will be needed to enforce the resolution. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that those who oppose military action should recognise that the risks of doing nothing in these circumstances probably outweigh the risks of doing something? However, there are risks involved in military action of exacerbating the terrorist threat that we face. It seems to me that there are two things that we could do to reduce that threat. One is to put renewed efforts behind getting a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. I realise that Israeli politics make that difficult but we need to be seen to be doing more. Secondly, whatever interim Government are imposed on Iraq after military action is taken should be not just a western Government but should involve as wide an international coalition as possible.

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman speaks with great wisdom. The resolution is good news but I emphasise that it has not yet been passed. I am making a statement today rather than after the Security Council resolution has been passed because the House will be prorogued and there will not be another opportunity this Session.
	As for military action, we are working on the basis that the resolution will prove effective. I have always said that the best chance of a peaceful solution to the crisis is through unanimity of the international community and a clear and credible threat of force if there is not compliance. Of course we must plan for the possibility of military action, but I remain quite optimistic that if we get unanimity, or near unanimity, the process can work. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the need to push forward with the middle east peace process.

Stephen Ladyman: I am absolutely delighted that the work of the Government whom I support has given the world at least an opportunity to remove peacefully what I regard as a serious threat. However, for the avoidance of doubt, will my right hon. Friend assure me that under paragraph 3 Saddam Hussein is required to make a complete disclosure? If, subsequently, inspectors prove that he lies in making that disclosure, will that be taken as indicating serious intent to deceive the international community, requiring further action?

Jack Straw: The simple answer is yes. The words mean what they say.

Edward Garnier: I join the Foreign Secretary in his warm remarks about the United States Administration. I hope that the United Kingdom Government will continue to act constructively with the United States irrespective of the criticism that they may receive from those on the Government Back Benches. I have not yet seen the text. Does it define precisely what is meant by Xmaterial breach"? Who, in the event of a discussion about what is or is not a material breach, will have the final say?

Jack Straw: The text does not define Xmaterial breach", because it is a term of art familiar in international law, equivalent to the breach of a fundamental term, which the hon. and learned Gentleman and I are familiar with from English law of contract. It amounts to what it says: a material breach. There has been some discussion about who is to decide. It will become patent whether there has been a material breach, and what follows will in the first instance be a matter for discussion inside the Security Council.

Oona King: I welcome the fact that Saddam Hussein is being given a final chance to disarm through the United Nations route. Will my right hon. Friend consider the situation facing the Iraqi people? No one has done more than Saddam Hussein to visit misery upon misery on them. Will the Foreign Secretary comment on reports that the resolution holds out some prospect that sanctions might eventually be removed? Under what circumstances might that happen?

Jack Straw: Of course we have very great concern for the plight of the Iraqi people—a concern not shared by Saddam Hussein. Millions of people are in poverty and worse as a result of his totalitarian, fascist dictatorship. As my hon. Friend suggests, the resolution provides the last best hope of a peaceful solution. The position on sanctions remains as in UNSCR 1284, which sets out procedures for the lifting of sanctions and the resumption of normal commercial and social relations, provided that Saddam Hussein complies with all his obligations under Security Council resolutions. It is very simple. It remains to be seen whether he will accept those obligations.

George Osborne: I, too, congratulate the Government and the American Government on the work that they have done on the resolution. Will the Foreign Secretary be clear about the process? If Iraq is in material breach of the resolution, will UN-authorised military action require a new resolution?

Jack Straw: The processes set out in the resolution are complicated, because this is a complicated matter and we have had to try to nail down all kinds of possibilities of what the Iraqi regime might do, bearing in mind how it has twisted and wriggled out of its obligations in the past. False statements or omissions or failure to comply, as set out in operative paragraph 4, will amount to a material breach, and any reporting by the inspectors may turn out to show a material breach. Then, under operative paragraph 12, the Security Council will meet to discuss the matter. Any member of the Security Council can table a resolution, and it remains to be seen whether the Security Council or individual members judge that a further resolution is necessary to deal with the material breach that is presented to them. It is complicated, but it is clear.

George Howarth: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend, the Government and the American Government on providing a realistic prospect of a tough Security Council resolution being passed in the near future. Will he confirm that the time for Saddam Hussein to play games is now rapidly running out?

Jack Straw: Yes, time is running out. If the resolution is passed unanimously, there will be clear deadlines for compliance, and that will serve the interests of the Iraqi people, as much as those of the security of the international community.

Alex Salmond: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the issue that previously divided the United States from other members of the Security Council and the UK Government from many Members of Parliament is whether action in the name of the United Nations can be explicitly sanctioned by the Security Council alone? Will he tell us, clearly and unambiguously, whether the proposed resolution is a mandate for weapons inspections and a report back to the Security Council on non-compliance, or whether it is in itself a mandate for war—and does the American Administration share his interpretation?

Jack Straw: I ask the hon. Gentleman to read through the resolution. We have always made it clear that any action that we take will be taken within the context of each of our obligations in international law, and the same applies to the United Nations. That remains the position. I have already said to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that the Security Council resolutions form part of international law but not the total corpus, and whether military action is justified in international law, with or without a second resolution, depends on the circumstances. I cannot predict those circumstances; moreover, I do not particularly want to, because what I want to see is a peaceful resolution of the crisis. The best way of getting such a peaceful resolution is, yes, by threatening force—we have to, because of the nature of Saddam Hussein—but also by backing that threat of force with a credible effective weapons inspection regime of the kind laid down in the draft resolution. If we do those two things, as we in the United Kingdom and the United States Government have been doing, we can have a peaceful outcome to the crisis.

Alice Mahon: It is clear to many commentators, and I too believe it, that this is a war resolution. The United States, with the help of our Government, shamefully, appears to have bullied and intimidated people into coming on line, and, perhaps, also promised the spoils of war—oil. The resolution is mined with trip wires to trigger a war. It should be named after the film XWag the Dog", because if Iraq does not trip up soon, I am pretty certain that the United States will make sure that it does.
	I have two questions for when we go to war. First, can we have an absolute assurance that our Government will have nothing to do with the use of nuclear weapons, bunker busters or depleted uranium? Secondly, can we be told the truth about civilian casualties this time? Whenever there is a statement on Afghanistan, nobody in the Government seems willing to tell us how many civilians have died there.

Jack Straw: I am sorry that my hon. Friend takes that view, and I have to say that I profoundly disagree with everything she has said. The very intensive discussions that I have been involved in over the past eight weeks with Foreign Ministers and Governments—those of Mauritius, Cameroon, Ireland, Syria, Mexico, Norway, Bulgaria, Singapore, Colombia and Guinea, as well as those of the Russian Federation, France, China and the United States—are not discussions between people who are not equal. The P5 and the elected 10 are all equals, because we have a similar vote within the Security Council. It strains credibility to suggest that if there is, as I hope there will be, a 14:1 or 15:0 vote on the resolution, it has come about only because of bullying. That is not the case. The reason why it has come about—or rather, will have come about, if it does—and the reason why there is now a great emerging consensus, is that everybody in the civilised world recognises that Saddam Hussein has been in the most terrible breach of international obligations under Security Council resolutions, and that the time has come to require that awful, terrible regime to put right those breaches of obligations. Sadly, we have to do so by threatening force, but backing it in this way with such an inspection system. There are no trip wires in the resolution; we have been extremely careful to ensure that there is none. For example, it gives realistic time scales. If he wishes, Saddam Hussein can comply with every dot and comma of it. It is what it says it is: a final opportunity.

John Stanley: Will the Foreign Secretary give an assurance that in the event of non-compliance by Iraq with the terms of the resolution, and the future commencement of large-scale military operations, the Government will at that point come to the House and make it clear whether the objective of those operations is disarmament alone or disarmament plus regime change?

Jack Straw: I shall not speculate about the circumstances in which military action may or may not operate, but I will tell the right hon. Gentleman, as I said in my statement, that there will be the fullest possible discussion in the House as things develop. For example, I am arranging with my right hon. Friends the Chief Whip and the Leader of the House for an early debate on the substantive resolution so that the House has a full opportunity to debate the matter.

Mike Gapes: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the remarks of Tim Trevan, the former United Nations inspector, who referred to Saddam's consistent policy of Xcheat and retreat"? Does he agree that the real crunch point is likely to come not now or even before Christmas, but some time in the spring of next year, if the Saddam regime—as has always been the case—carries out a policy of lying and misleading, and cheating on its obligations? Can my right hon. Friend be sure that the international inspectors will be given the fullest possible support, so that they can really reveal what is going on in Iraq?

Jack Straw: I do not think that we can yet be sure of anything so far as Saddam Hussein is concerned. We work on the basis that this man is a liar and a cheat. We spent a long time drafting the resolution to ensure that it covers every possibility that we can conceive of; and that is why, annexed to the resolution but being made into Security Council law, is a very detailed letter from Mr. Blix and Mr. El Baradei to the Iraqi regime, setting out further very important conditions on the operation of the inspection regime. We cannot be sure that Iraq will comply—it is in its interests to do so—but we can be sure that if it fails to do so, it will be in material breach. That will then be reported to the Security Council, and serious consequences will follow.

Andrew Tyrie: I am not sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) got a full answer to his question, so perhaps I might try to put it this way. If Saddam complies in full with this resolution and remains in power, will that, in the Government's view, constitute regime change?

Jack Straw: Well, if he is still there, it will not constitute regime change.

Kevin McNamara: In the event of Saddam Hussein's failing to meet the terms of this resolution, do the British Government intend to table a resolution to the United Nations, seeking its support for the use of force, whether or not that resolution will be supported by the Security Council? Furthermore, will he confirm that the draft resolution will not anticipate a carte blanche for British troops to intervene in Iraq without the obtaining of further permission from the House?

Jack Straw: I have already sought to explain to Members how the procedure set out in the resolution would operate. If there is a further material breach, meetings of the Security Council will be called, and there will be discussions. It is open to any member of the Security Council—including, obviously, the United Kingdom—to put forward a resolution or resolutions about the circumstances that will then obtain. We of course reserve the right to do so, but I cannot at this stage anticipate what could happen in a series of hypothetical situations. I have already given undertakings on the issue of matters being debated, discussed and determined by this House. I am strongly in favour of this House playing a full role whenever the issue arises of military action being taken by forces on behalf of this country.

Norman Lamb: Like others, I warmly welcome the progress made by the United Nations towards achieving compliance. The Foreign Secretary talked about the need to progress the middle east peace process, which is clearly essential. The Prime Minister proposed the setting up of a new conference on that process, but little progress seems to have been made. In the light of the imminent election in Israel and the possibility of an even more right wing Israeli Prime Minister, does the Foreign Secretary see matters progressing beyond mere words? Such developments are essential to getting the process moving.

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman raises a serious and important issue. As I said in response to an earlier question, we have to push forward with the middle east process with even greater firmness and determination precisely because of the situation with Iraq. We must not allow it to hold us back. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the various obstacles. Intensive discussions have taken place between the quartet—the United Nations, the Russian Federation, the United States and the European Union—about the so-called road map. I gave an interim progress report during Foreign Office questions on Tuesday. I am hoping for progress, not least now that there is some political space in the United States.

Peter Kilfoyle: A few minutes ago the Foreign Secretary said that, internationally, we are all equal. I do not doubt, however, that some are more equal than others. Given the atrocious nature of the regime in Baghdad—but also given what many believe to be the incontrovertible fact that the United States Administration have browbeaten the United Nations in an unedifying spectacle, on the basis that might is right—can the Foreign Secretary explain to me and to people of a like mind how it serves our wider national interest to be associated with such diplomatic tactics?

Jack Straw: I cannot offer my hon. Friend an explanation because the assumption behind his question is simply untrue.

Andrew Mitchell: I welcome what the Foreign Secretary has said today, which underlines the tremendous skill shown by our diplomats in New York and elsewhere in working to achieve what he describes. I wish to underline a point that has been made only twice today so far. If international action follows, as I fear it will, the widest possible coalition of international support in the middle east should be sought, so that we receive, if not the active support, at least the passive acquiescence of those countries that will suffer most from the fallout of that action.

Jack Straw: By the process of intensive discussion that has taken place over the past eight weeks—and through this whole calendar year—the United States and this country have shown that we fully recognise the need for a broad coalition of opinion behind such a use of the international community's power. That intent will continue.

Stuart Bell: I wish to build on the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King), and remind the House that the Iraqi people would be the greatest beneficiaries from the removal of sanctions if Saddam Hussein complied with the resolution. If a time of crisis is a time of opportunity, is not this a great and unique opportunity for Saddam Hussein to return to the international community, to live by the rule of international law, to ease tension in the Gulf and to benefit his people by full compliance with the 17th United Nations resolution?

Jack Straw: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend.

John Gummer: Will the Foreign Secretary accept that the motion before the United Nations is a considerable improvement on the previous motions, and that this process—in which he has played an important part—has been vital in obtaining a consensus internationally and among many who are concerned about the legality and the way in which any action might be viewed in future? Will he emphasise to the United Nations how important it is that the motion is not a compromise but something better? Will he also bring home to the United States the necessity of using the same efforts to solve the problems between Palestine and Israel at the same time?

Jack Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. All of us who have been involved in the process are aware of the anxieties of the public, which I share—as do the Prime Minister and the United States—about the prospect of military action being used. Military action should never be used except as a last resort when all other possibilities have been exhausted. It should not be used because innocent people get killed in military action, because unintended consequences may occur and because we put the lives of our troops and the future of their families on the line. Those are serious responsibilities that we have to shoulder and ensure that they are reflected in our work. They have been so reflected here and, I believe strongly, in the United States. All my reading suggests that public opinion in the United States, and in the Administration, is no different in almost all particulars from that here or elsewhere.
	As for the resolution of the Palestine-Israel question, I agree that that is viewed slightly differently across the Atlantic. As I have said, we must work closely with our American friends, as well as with those in the Russian Federation, the EU and the P5 group to secure justice for Israelis and Palestinians.

Glenda Jackson: If Iraq fails to comply and military action—the most serious of consequences—ensues, would that require a mandate from the UN? Would this country support a coalition of nations undertaking that military action if such a mandate were not forthcoming? Under what legal verification would that be possible?

Jack Straw: As I have said on a number of occasions in answer to questions, we would prefer to stay with the UN Security Council route. However, we must reserve the right, within our obligations under international law, to take military action if we deem that necessary, outwith a specific Security Council resolution being passed in the future.
	I repeat that the UN charter, Security Council resolutions and customary international law are the basis of international law. They have to come together. Judgments about whether military action is necessary and justified in international law must be made on that totality.

Andrew MacKay: If Iraq fails to comply with the resolution and we then deem it necessary to take military action with our American allies, does the Foreign Secretary share my concern that public opinion in this country does not support that? That is especially true of people with previous military experience, despite the publication of the dossier by the Prime Minister last month. In those circumstances, I urge the Foreign Secretary to reveal further information that would satisfy the British people about the very real threat that Iraq poses, and about its close links with international terrorism. To date, he has failed to do that.

Jack Straw: I do not accept the burden of the right. hon. Gentleman's question. The fairest thing to be said is that, although there is a wide spectrum of public opinion in this country, in Europe and in the US, there is no doubt that there is a much higher level of support for firm action within the UN route than outwith it. That is one of the many reasons why we have been determined, as far as humanly possible, to follow the UN route and to stay with it.

David Winnick: The UN resolution is tough, and I hope that it will be adopted by the Security Council, but does my right hon. Friend accept the criticism that it should have been adopted after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991? If that had happened, the matter would have been resolved one way or the other.
	We all hope that military action can be avoided. However, if it cannot be avoided, and action is taken, will it be made absolutely clear that there will be no foreign occupation of Iraq? There have been stories in the press and elsewhere to the effect that the US would remain in occupation for some years. That would be unacceptable to the international community, and especially to the Arab world. Will my right hon. Friend clear that matter up now?

Jack Straw: I do not want to get drawn too far into hypothetical situations. We want the matter to be resolved peacefully. If the resolution is agreed by the UN, it will provide a means to resolve it peacefully, without any need to speculate about foreign occupation. If military action is taken, a range of possibilities will open up, but we would also seek to ensure that the government of Iraq was in better and more representative hands than at present. The history of countries all over the world, and not just in the Arab world, shows that Governments are better when they are run by the peoples of their countries, and not by dictators or foreign occupiers.

Julian Lewis: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, whereas the plant needed to make nuclear weapons can be detected fairly easily by an efficient inspection regime, the plant required to make chemical and biological weapons is much more difficult to detect? Saddam Hussein has had since 1998 to build up stocks of chemical and biological weapons and even to dismantle the plant that produced them. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is a danger that it will be very difficult indeed for an inspection regime to discover those stocks, which could be hidden anywhere in the vast area that is Iraq? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that, even under the most rigorous inspection regime, we can have confidence that Saddam Hussein will not be able to maintain such stocks and, if he wishes, supply to them terrorist groups abroad?

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the greater ease with which one can hide chemical and biological weapons and facilities for developing nuclear weapons. That is true and it has had to be factored in to the powers being given to the weapons inspectors. No one can guarantee what is going to happen now. We cannot predict the future. The powers that the resolution will give to the weapons inspectors are the toughest possible powers to secure the best outcome—we hope—but the resolution also requires compliance and co-operation by the Saddam Hussein regime. It needs to know that if it fails to comply with any of the particulars, it will be in material breach and serious consequences will follow.

Lynne Jones: I hope and pray that my right hon. Friend is right when he says that the draft resolution represents a genuine wish by the United States authorities to bring about effective weapons inspection by peaceful means. Will he give the House further details of the enhanced powers that the resolution gives to UNMOVIC and the International Atomic Energy Agency? Which provisions of resolution 1154 does the resolution override? Has the chief of the weapons inspectors requested that they should be accompanied by security guards? How many such guards would he expect to be dispatched and which countries are they likely to come from?

Jack Straw: The third tiret of operational paragraph 7 overrides the provisions of resolution 1154 in respect of presidential sites. The fifth tiret states:
	XSecurity of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient UN security guards".
	They will come from a number of countries.

Chris Grayling: The Secretary of State will be aware that discussions on the resolution are taking place against the background of increasing reports of international terrorist threats. Is he aware of any indicators that suggest that there are links between Saddam Hussein's regime and those threats? I do not expect him to be able to give details of the intelligence that he might have, but are there any indications of a linkage?

Jack Straw: There is clear evidence of linkage between the Iraqi regime and terrorist organisations of a very pernicious kind operating in Israel and the occupied territories. I have seen no evidence to link the Iraqi regime to al-Qaeda in respect of what happened before 11 September, but as I told the House on Tuesday, if such evidence is produced I would not be surprised.

Ann Clwyd: I recognise the efforts that my right hon. Friend has made to bring about an acceptable wording for the resolution. We all hope that it will avoid war. What progress has he made on another matter that I have raised many times in the Chamber—using international law and calling on the United Nations to set up a war crimes tribunal on Iraq, which would be the best way to bring about a regime change without military action? What progress is he making in indicting leading members of the regime, using international law, which can be used in this country, for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide?

Jack Straw: I thank my hon. Friend for her generous remarks and place on record my admiration for her work for the Kurdish people and the other oppressed peoples of Iraq. She has undertaken that work at times when it has not been popular as well as when it has become more noteworthy.
	We have been making as much effort as we can in respect of indicting the war criminals in Iraq. I recognise my hon. Friend's feeling that that is not sufficient and I will continue to pursue indictment in the United Kingdom. As she knows, I speak to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General about this from time to time. I shall be seeing him again this afternoon for a further discussion. We certainly do not rule out an international tribunal trying Saddam Hussein and others in his Government for war crimes.

Gregory Barker: As welcome as this resolution will be, we all nevertheless recognise that its time scale moves us closer to the possibility of conflict. In the light of a possible large-scale conflict in the middle east, can the Foreign Secretary tell the House what Government and cross-departmental contingency plans have been made to deal with the huge humanitarian disaster that could follow as a result of an exodus from the conflict zone?

Jack Straw: I do not believe that if the resolution is passed it will advance the prospect of war. I think that the prospect of military action will recede. I have always been clear about that. We cannot put a mathematical number on the possibilities, but I have always been clear that the more unanimous we are in the international community and the tougher we are at first, the less likelihood there is of us having to use military action, but we may have to use it.
	All sorts of contingency plans are of course being prepared.

Bernard Jenkin: What are they?

Jack Straw: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that I am going to disclose these to the House, and therefore to Saddam Hussein, he needs to think again.

Anne Campbell: What will my right hon. Friend say to the hundreds of my constituents who have written to me because they are concerned that the United States and the United Kingdom are hell bent on war, whatever the actions of the Iraqi leader? Can he give me an assurance that, should Saddam Hussein fully comply with the UN resolution, there will be no military conflict?

Jack Straw: The answer to my hon. Friend's second question is that I do not anticipate any circumstances in which there would be military action in which we would participate regarding Saddam Hussein's defiance of his obligations under United Nations Security Council resolutions if he suddenly decided to comply. Operative paragraph 2 spells out very clearly that this is a final opportunity for Saddam to comply.
	Of course I understand the anxieties of my hon. Friend's constituents. We all share them. They believed that the United States and the United Kingdom would go it alone to be unilateral. That has not happened, and now that we have chosen to use the United Nations route—I hope successfully—those who have been calling for it must not now call for something different. I am afraid that one or two colleagues in the House—not my hon. Friend—are changing their tune because the first one has not worked.

Ernie Ross: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing the resolution. In the debate held during the recall of Parliament, I said that I would find it difficult to imagine a resolution that would be so specific. As an avid reader of UN resolutions, I have never read one as specific as this, and I hope that it goes through in its entirety in New York.
	I agree with right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who have reminded my right hon. Friend of the need to reassure people in the middle east that not only are we determined to be firm about this but to set a road map and resolve the Israel-Palestine question as speedily as possible.

Jack Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. He has already heard what I said about the middle east, and I share his opinion on that. The UN resolution is very specific—that is one reason why it has taken such intensive discussions to negotiate. However, we are not there yet. We hope to be, but we have to get the other 14 members of the Security Council to vote for it.

Hilton Dawson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that all the work that he and Government colleagues have done over the past many weeks and months has been in the interests of international peace and law, and that it has not been a question of the countries of the west getting their hands on Iraq's oil? Will he also confirm that the action being taken at the United Nations could strengthen its authority and standing? Does he hope that other countries in the middle east that are in breach of UN resolutions will take careful note of the work that has been done to achieve compliance with these resolutions?

Jack Straw: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. The issue was the authority of the United Nations and thus the authority of the whole international community. We want Saddam Hussein's compliance with this resolution. We also want compliance with all UN Security Council resolutions. By definition, the United Kingdom, as a permanent member with a veto, has always supported, or at least not opposed, those resolutions, although we have particular responsibilities to see that they are subject to full compliance.

Linda Gilroy: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on their work in bringing about this multilateral UN approach, which many people would not have thought possible a few months ago. It will come as a huge relief to my constituents, who all express the view not only that this is a last chance for peace but that it affects the credibility of the United Nations.
	In respect of that credibility, although I realise that my right hon. Friend does not want to anticipate a situation whereby there has to be an immediate recall if there is action under paragraph 4, and bearing it in mind that in 1991 Saddam Hussein failed to declare any biological weapons, will my right hon. Friend comment in general terms on whether he thinks there is seriousness fully to support the disarmament work of the weapons inspectors rather than the ambivalence that was too often displayed by the Security Council between 1991 and 1998?

Jack Straw: I hope and believe that there is that seriousness. Under the leadership provided by President Bush, the UN recognised that it faced a serious moment in its history, when its own credibility was at stake. My hon. Friend is right to refer to the fact that Saddam Hussein was able to play games with the international community because the international community was not united in its resolve to secure the disarmament of Iraq. I hope and believe that the new arrangements indicate a new approach by the international community, but we must ensure that all its members and the Security Council fully back the resolution if, as I hope, it is passed.

Harry Barnes: Although it was a long time ago, I lived in Iraq for two years, so I have great concern for the well-being of the Iraqi people. Is it not the case that, under Saddam Hussein's regime, the people of Iraq have suffered considerably—from the Iraq-Iran war, the Gulf war, economic sanctions, economic collapse, hyperinflation and Saddam Hussein's internal oppression? Should Anglo-American invasion or attack on Iraq be added to that devastating list?

Jack Straw: I have already said that we do not want military action. I know of my hon. Friend's concern for the plight of the Iraqi people, but everything that he listed was caused by one man—Saddam Hussein.

Malcolm Savidge: As someone who has expressed concern about Government policy, may I welcome the general terms of the resolution and, in particular, the provision that compliance should be determined by the inspectors and that non-compliance should be reported to the Security Council? Will my right hon. Friend recognise that for many of us it is vital that the appropriate response to any breach is decided by the United Nations and we rely on the Prime Minister's assurances that war will be regarded as a last resort?

Jack Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks, which I greatly appreciate.
	Yes, the Prime Minister was right when he said that we see the prospect of military action very much as a last resort. I repeat that if we can pass the resolution in its current form, or close to it, the prospect of military action will recede.

John Smith: May I take this first opportunity to thank personally my right hon. Friend and his Department for securing the release of my constituent, Peter Shaw, yesterday? We all hope that the resolution is passed and we understand what the phrase Xserious consequences" means, but is my right hon. Friend confident that the Iraqis and the Arabic-speaking world know what it means?

Jack Straw: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said about the work of our diplomats in London and in the region in securing Mr. Peter Shaw's release from the terrible incarceration that he has suffered and, through my hon. Friend, I should like to pass on to Mr. Shaw and his family my very good wishes. I heard him on the radio late last night, and he and his daughter were remarkably phlegmatic given the most appalling situation in which he had been.
	As for Iraq, I do not think that Saddam Hussein has any doubt at all about the phrase Xserious consequences"; he knows what it means. However, he faces a clear choice: whether to continue down the road of deception and double dealing, which is second nature to him, or whether to recognise that the words in the resolution mean what they say. This is a final opportunity for Iraq to comply.

Mark Hendrick: Does my right hon. Friend believe, as I do, that the resolution in its current form constitutes a test for the United Nations of its relevance in the 21st century?

Jack Straw: Yes, it does. That is why we have said throughout that this is not just a matter of our showing faith in the UN; in turn, the UN has to take responsibility for such a flagrant breach of its own obligations.

Win Griffiths: Like all hon. Members, I hope that the UN will pass the resolution later today or tomorrow and that the Security Council will give it its full support. It is much more preferable that the will of the Prime Minister and people such as Colin Powell has prevailed in Washington, rather than that of people such as Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, who, at one time, seemed intent on our going to war straight away. Countries such as Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world, will be very pleased that it seems as though things will be resolved peacefully through the UN.
	Can my right hon. Friend tell us what will happen to the no-fly zones if everything goes ahead as the resolution indicates? What lessons will there be for the role of the UN in dealing with other hot spots? The middle east has already been mentioned, but what about the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the half dozen other nations involved in that struggle, very much to the detriment of their own peoples?

Jack Straw: First, I hope that the resolution will be passed by tomorrow, but I would rather the vote were delayed if the result of that delay was that we gained unanimity or a larger vote. I would personally be very happy to wait until the beginning of next week if by doing so we get 14 or 15 signed up to the resolution rather than a lower number.
	On the no-fly zones, decisions will have to be taken about them in the light of circumstances. Self-evidently, they operate not under this resolution but under previous resolutions, but neither we nor the United States have an interest in continuing to operate the no-fly zones longer than necessary.
	On the DRC, my hon. Friend will know that a UN peacekeeping force—MONUC—is already there, and we want MONUC to have an enhanced role in the emerging peace process.

Harry Cohen: Although I acknowledge the work put into the resolution, are not the Russians right in saying that it still contains ambiguities? For example, would not inspection teams under the resolution be likely to be US-dominated? Why have UNMOVIC and the IAEA got the right to destroy any records at will? Why has Iraq got to justify everything that is not related to weapons production or materials? That could include any pharmacy shop. Why cannot the Secretary of State explicitly say that economic sanctions will be lifted if Iraq complies with the final UN resolution?

Jack Straw: With great respect, on the last point, I have already said that resolution 1284 lays out the circumstances for lifting economic sanctions, which are not directly dealt with by this resolution. The sanctions could be lifted tomorrow by the Security Council if Saddam Hussein complied with his obligations; it is his failure to do so that causes the sanctions to continue. Moreover, let us be clear that it is not the economic sanctions that have plunged the Iraqi people into poverty but Saddam Hussein's decisions. He could feed every man, woman and child in Iraq today, under sanctions, if he chose to do so.
	So far as the Russians are concerned, there has been a lengthy iterative process of discussion and negotiation with all five permanent members of the Security Council which has resulted in a meeting of minds with the Russian Federation and others. The Russians' view is a matter not for me but for President Putin and his Foreign Minister, Igor Ivanov. A few issues remain to be discussed, but just before I came to the House I had a good conversation with Mr. Ivanov about aspects of the resolution, and I believe that these matters can and will be resolved.

Jon Owen Jones: As it seems likely that, one way or the other, there will be regime change in Baghdad within six months or a year, do the Government have a clear view about whether the interests of Iraq's neighbours in ensuring the integrity of Iraq are more or less important than a possible conflict with the democratic wishes of the Iraqi people?

Jack Straw: All the neighbours are clear about the importance of maintaining the territorial integrity of Iraq. One of the preliminary paragraphs of the draft resolution reaffirms
	Xthe commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait and the neighbouring states".

Louise Ellman: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his work in bringing us to this point. Does he agree that the special status of this resolution under chapter VII of the United Nations charter, which deals with acts of aggression, puts special responsibility on the United Nations to secure its enforcement?

Jack Straw: Yes, which is why I drew the attention of the House to the fact that this is a chapter VII resolution. That does not mean that other resolutions should not be enforced, but this resolution places categorical obligations on one member state. Other resolutions, such as 242 and 338, are more complex because they place obligations on a number of member states and on the Palestinian Authority, and we have therefore to enforce them through a different route.

Roger Casale: I welcome the resolution, which offers us the best hope of achieving what we all want—a peaceful resolution of the crisis. I know that my right hon. Friend will accept, however, that while we all hope for the best, it is the Government's special responsibility to prepare for the worst. I know that he will pursue the United Nations route to the end, but he is right to emphasise that if it is not possible to resolve the crisis in that way, we must retain the right to act in the face of the threat posed by the Iraqi regime. Will he confirm that, in the future as now, it is in this country's best defence interests to have a strong multilateral, international system, but we will not achieve that by failing to stand up to dangerous, aggressive dictators such as Saddam Hussein?

Jack Straw: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks, and I agree with every word.

Michael Ancram: The Foreign Secretary will agree that it is important that we and our American allies interpret the resolution and its outcome in the same way. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) asked him whether he would regard full compliance as a regime change, and his answer was that if Saddam Hussein is still there, the regime has not changed. He may remember that yesterday Richard Armitage, the US Deputy Secretary of State, when asked the same question, said that if there were full compliance, the American Government would consider that the regime had changed. I hope that the Foreign Secretary is not trying to take a harder line than the American Government, and I offer him the chance to reconsider his answer.

Jack Straw: Richard Armitage is a great man. I would not dream of disagreeing with him—no one who had seen his size would do so. This is a question of ambiguity, and an important issue is involved. There is an issue of regime change and of removing the current regime under Saddam Hussein from office. Is that the purpose of the resolution? No. It is not mentioned once in the resolution. As a matter of interpretation, if Saddam Hussein has his weapons of mass destruction removed, does that, in turn, change the nature of the regime? Yes.

Orders of the Day

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill

Consideration of Lords message.

Mr. Speaker: I draw the House's attention to the fact that a paper containing a Government motion to disagree and amendments in lieu is available in the Vote Office. I also remind the House that proceedings on the Lords message are limited to one hour.
	Lords Amendment: 17B, in page 9, line 8, at end insert—
	X( ) In determining the location of premises provided under this section the Secretary of State shall have regard to the needs of the persons to be accommodated therein."

David Blunkett: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
	I offer my thanks to Members on both sides of the House who have contributed to the debates and the improvements that have been made during the passage of the Bill through both Houses. It is a better Bill for the changes that have been made, and, on the whole, people have contributed very constructively to it. I do not pretend for a moment that I can satisfy every Hampstead liberal in every party, although I might go some way towards satisfying the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), who was described by one of his former shadow Cabinet colleagues as a Hampstead liberal, which I am not sure was a term of endearment.

Desmond Swayne: Shocking.

David Blunkett: Absolutely. Terribly shocking. I also want to put on record my thanks to the Minister of State, my noble Friend Lord Filkin, and our Whips, advisers and officials for all their tremendous hard work.

Glenda Jackson: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

David Blunkett: I could do nothing else to a Hampstead liberal.

Glenda Jackson: I merely want to point out to my right hon. Friend that my constituents surely have a right to have their views expressed on the Floor of the House, regardless of whether they voted for me or any other political party, especially when their feelings with regard to the segregated education of asylum-seeking children are so deeply and passionately held.

David Blunkett: I am absolutely clear that my hon. Friend has every right to express her view, to do so as vehemently as she did in the debate on Tuesday—to which I listened with considerable interest—to have it taken into account and to receive a response. I heard all sorts of adjectives such as Xoutrageous" and Xabominable" that did not take us much further in persuading each other of the case. Throughout the Bill, it is persuasion that has led me to make concessions on amendments that have improved the Bill.

Glenda Jackson: I accept my right hon. Friend's point with regard to persuasion, which is why many of my constituents are bemused that, on the issue to which I have referred, he seems not to have taken into consideration at all the opposition to segregated education from every teaching union and association that deals with the welfare of children and from many others.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The amendment under discussion relates to accommodation centres rather than education.

David Blunkett: In dealing with the broad issue of accommodation centres, I will seek to deal with my hon. Friend's comments. Terminology that describes open centres as prisons has not exactly helped to persuade me that she and those of her constituents who have approached her have fully understood the nature of the centres that we are providing nor their comparators in some of the most liberal countries in the world, including Scandinavia. In the short time that I have available, I will seek to make a case in respect of the amendments in the context of the overall policy that we are trying to pursue. I want to put the issue in context so that the House and those outside understand what we are doing.
	The Bill develops a careful balance between our human rights and convention obligations—which we accept readily and openly—and a streamlined and robust process to build trust with the British people. This balance entails the development of new routes of entry for economic migration, which we believe is necessary for our economy and welcome in terms of diversity and culture in Britain. In doing that, we have sought to deter those who use clandestine asylum processes to seek economic rather than refugee status. That is highly relevant to what we are doing today.
	We have sought, and will put in place, a new gateway for those desperately seeking refugee status, and who live in circumstances and regions so poor that they are unable to pay organised criminal traffickers. Our proposal means that such people will be able to obtain refugee status in this country. The reality is that many—but not all—of the people trafficked across Europe into the United Kingdom come here only because they or their families have paid large sums of money to the worst kind of organised criminals who exploit the needs of the most deprived. However, the people who need refugee status most cannot get out of the circumstances in which they find themselves. At some point in the future, that may be the subject of a further debate—but I hope not legislation—in the House.
	Above all, we accept what has been restated throughout our consideration of the Bill. There is a need dramatically to improve the performance of our immigration, nationality and asylum processes and the directorate that oversees them. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) has intervened on me twice, and I hope that she will accept that that was one of the central points that she made on Tuesday. I listened and I accept the point, because I believe that is relevant. All sides have said that it does not matter what legislation we put in place if we do not dramatically improve the administration of the system. Unless we do that, even our best intentions will come to nothing.

Louise Ellman: Does my right hon. Friend recall that I have raised particular concerns about accommodation centres and the lack of control over those running them? One of my greatest fears is that the new isolated centres could be run by people who do not treat the people in them properly. Is he able to offer me any reassurance on that given my past experience in Liverpool?

David Blunkett: I am offering that in terms of both the provision in the Bill for a monitor and the amendment that deals with the role of the monitor. There will also be direct accountability and oversight of the centres by Ministers in a way that has been difficult to achieve in the early stages of dispersal and in the appalling conditions—including in my hon. Friend's constituency in Liverpool—to which people have drawn attention. It is precisely because we wish to avoid a continuation of that situation that we want a system that is better, not worse. Here is the rub, and it is highlighted by an interesting debate—not a debate that I necessarily wish to enter into—that started in Birmingham yesterday. Interest was shown on the radio and in an interview this morning about the nature of what is happening in the inner cities where the largest number of asylum seekers are currently housed and where they seek services.
	Let us take the issue of education in accommodation centres, for instance. The faster, more efficient, more improved the administration, the greater the speed with which those resident in accommodation centres will move through the process. If we were to achieve that in dispersal, alongside such improvement in accommodation centres, we would enormously increase the pressure on services—in respect of throughflow in GP practices or turnover—which already exercises the teaching unions and hon. Members, particularly in London, where population turnover is already very high and impacts on both children who are placed and those already there, and on the ability of teachers to do their jobs properly. As a trained teacher, I know that it is a fact that the greater the turnover, the greater the difficulty in managing stability, consistency and teaching of all children who require special attention.
	So here is the paradox: the more efficient the system, the more we need accommodation centres. If the system were working as I wished, turnover in schools, GP practices and accommodation would be such that the logistics would be very difficult to manage and problems for pupils, asylum seekers and service providers would be very great.

Jon Owen Jones: My right hon. Friend is making an important point. Does he recognise that, because rapid turnover makes it much more difficult to organise accommodation, teaching and so on, there are all sorts of understandable vested interests in ensuring that the system works as slowly as possible? That cannot be in the overall interests of the country or asylum seekers.

David Blunkett: I agree entirely. After some useful debates, we are getting to the nub of what we are trying to do. The official Opposition want us to speed up the process through accommodation centres even further. I promise all hon. Members that we will do our best in trying to ensure that the administration responds and that there is proper accountability to us as Ministers and through us to Parliament. We will try to achieve the substantial improvement that one section of the immigration and nationality directorate has made in first decisions, for which I commend it.
	In April 1997, it took an average of 20 months for a first decision to be made. In December last year, it took an average of 13 months. Now, three quarters of first decisions are made within two months: a dramatic improvement that we need to match in every part of the process.

Annabelle Ewing: The Home Secretary referred to the need for general improvement in the administration of the asylum and immigration system. What time scale has been envisaged and what targets are being set for such improvement?

David Blunkett: This Bill sets in train the targets that we have set the service in respect of those going through accommodation centres. We have debated whether such targets should be two, four, six, nine or 12 months, and we have hit on and now agreed as part of the Bill—that part is not under debate this afternoon—the time scales on which I hope to be able to improve, accelerating the processes. I hope to be able to lay orders before Parliament for still further improvement.

Simon Hughes: The Home Secretary is rightly talking about the improvements that have been made to the Bill. The final Division in the other place last night was on the education issue, and, as he knows, the Government's view in the end prevailed. Given that that is now fixed, will he clarify whether it will still be possible for the local education authority to have prior right to run the education service in the accommodation centre, which I know was always an option and was under consideration when I last spoke to his colleagues?

David Blunkett: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have reminded hon. Members that the amendment deals with accommodation centres and their location, not education.

David Blunkett: I take your strictures, Madam Deputy Speaker. I merely observe, however, that I would say Xcollaboratively" rather than Xprior" given the fact that education authorities no longer run schools as they did 15 or 20 years ago. That is emblazoned on my heart because I dealt with it for four years before I took on this job.
	We are dealing with end-to-end reform of the process once people reach our shores, from new induction centres through accommodation centres and, where appropriate, dispersal and reporting, to integration or speedy removal. The task is clear: to provide a fairer and more effective service. When people reach our shores, we must make it clear that we expect them to claim asylum at that point and port of entry unless they have a good reason for not doing so. Once they have claimed asylum, the new induction centres, which will be crucial to assessing their needs, will come into play. For the foreseeable future, the vast majority will continue to be in an improved dispersal system. Trial accommodation centres are a crucial part of the process. We intend to ensure that we learn the lessons rapidly. They offer an option, which we must explore, dramatically to speed up the process, and I think the Conservatives agree that that is the way to proceed.
	I have tabled an amendment to enable the new independent monitor of accommodation centres to consider
	Xwhether, in the case of any accommodation centre, its location prevents a need of its residents from being met."
	In doing so, we emphasise the needs of the resident. We should not be diverted by the argument about whether all asylum seekers should be accommodated in urban locations. Indeed, it has been implied that that would be in the most deprived urban areas that have the space or the facilities. We reject that. There should be a plurality. It should not be a case of one or the other. We need an experimental approach when deciding on the most appropriate location. The emphasis is on whether a site meets a need of the individual.

Tony Baldry: By implication, surely we are talking about a proposed location. The Government will not go to the expense of building an accommodation centre before they ask the independent monitor whether it meets the needs of asylum seekers. Clearly, the Government will have to ask the independent monitor to express that view on a proposed location before an accommodation centre is built. Otherwise, there will be considerable nugatory expenditure.

David Blunkett: We want to ensure that we have thought the matter through and have an evidence-based approach. My hon. Friend the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration said on Tuesday that different needs will have to be met in different types of centre. Some centres will be appropriate for single individuals. Others will be designed to meet the needs of those from a particular region who have a particular language requirement. That will help us to deal with the adjudication process, which requires not only legal advice but interpretation of that advice. If an identified need cannot be met, the other parts of the process will kick into play. The measure is an addition, an underpinning and a reinforcement of the process with regard to, for instance, education, on which we said that a special or specific need might have to be met in a different way. We now accept that that might be dealt with in a broader context, with the monitor offering a view.
	We have listened and we expect others—in particular, the other House—to listen to what we have said.

Louise Ellman: Will my right hon. Friend commit the Government to assessing in the experimentation that is now to go ahead the model proposed by the Refugee Council as one possible way in which to run the centres?

David Blunkett: Some bodies, organisations and agencies have taken what they would regard as a principled stand and they have opposed our proposals, full stop. Others—the Refugee Council is one of them—while disagreeing fundamentally with the Government have been prepared to engage in dialogue, which is a two-way process of listening and responding. We have responded: my hon. Friend the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration said on Tuesday that we were prepared to continue to work with the Refugee Council on the configuration of the smaller centre, and we will respond to its other ideas, not least core and cluster.
	We are continuing that process of dialogue. I mention the Refugee Council in particular because it has had slightly more impact on us than others, not because it has been less vigorous, but because it has been more reasonable. When it has been given assurances, it has been prepared to accept them, and when an argument is put to it, it has been prepared to listen.
	Let me conclude by making one thing absolutely clear, and I hope that those in the other House will hear my words: we are now at the last throw of the dice. I will make no more amendments to the Bill. I hope that the other House will allow us to pass the legislation and so enable us to do what we all want to do, which is to establish a more effective, reasonable, sensitive and sensible system in which the British people have trust and which people throughout the world will know offers them a better opportunity to come to this country legitimately, to work here legitimately, or to seek sanctuary here in a more effective fashion.

Oliver Letwin: I echo the Home Secretary's thanks to my colleagues, my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) and my noble Friends Lord Kingsland and Baroness Anelay of St. Johns, for their splendid work on the Bill as it has proceeded through its parliamentary stages.
	I thought that the Home Secretary made both an ingenious and an elegant little Third Reading speech, which skilfully avoided any direct reference to the matter in hand—the Government amendment. That is understandable, given that it would not have been conducive to his having a good morning were he to have admitted that it echoes extremely closely an amendment first suggested by my noble Friend Baroness Anelay on 10 October—at which time the Government denied that it was in any way possible to accommodate the problems of accommodation centres by doing what they now suggest should be done. However, it would be churlish of me not to welcome what the Government have done, because they have done what needs to be done.
	The amendment creates an independent arbiter who will be required, as well as requested, to look into whether the place in which a particular accommodation centre is put is appropriate from the point of view of its residents. To make that judgment, the monitor will need to look both at the nature of what is being put in that place, and at the place in which it is being put. That was the intent of the original amendment, No. 17, and it is far from our intention to cavil at the replacement of one amendment proposed by Conservative Members in the Lords by an amendment that is, in effect, another of our amendments. It is an excellent result, which we welcome.
	I have two observations and one request to make. The first observation is that amendment No. 37, which underlies the amendment that is before us, makes it clear that the
	XMonitor shall report . . . at least once in each calendar year".
	My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), who has played so notable a part in our proceedings, asked the Home Secretary whether it would be the case that the monitor would report before the centres in question were established. That was for him a particularly important question because my hon. Friend represents one of the places where, at present, it is intended to establish one of the centres.
	The Home Secretary gave one of the most masterly pieces of obfuscation as a reply that I have yet been privileged to hear, even from his mouth in this place. I do not think that I could have matched in any way the efforts that he made to avoid answering that question, but I can answer it for him. Unless the right hon. Gentleman intends—I am sure that he does not—to delay unreasonably the appointment of a monitor, it will be the case that a year from now the monitor will report on this issue. I will lay an extremely large wager that the accommodation centre in my hon. Friend's constituency will not have been built one year from now. I suspect that it will not have been given planning permission a year from now. I suspect that the monitor will have reported long before the centre is built. Therefore, the answer to my hon. Friend's question is yes. That does not require any obfuscation.
	Secondly, so far as we can see, if the monitor is to report to Parliament as amendment No. 37 dictates specifically that he shall, the monitor will need to explain to Parliament what depositions he has sought and what depositions he has received from experts. That is necessary to avoid judicial review of his process. I am sure, therefore, that he will seek the views of the various groups that concern themselves with and have expertise in relation to the needs of those who are to be housed in accommodation centres. We know which groups these are because 10 of them wrote to the Home Secretary not long ago to make their views known on these matters. We can reasonably accurately predict what they will say to the monitor about the proposed large rural locations. The monitor will clearly need to take their views into account.
	The monitor will obviously have to take into account what the Home Secretary says to him. None of us is in a position to determine what the monitor will take as his view in the light of the two sets of depositions from the Home Secretary and from other bodies. However, it seems likely that if the monitor concludes that the needs of those who are to be housed are not properly to be met in large rural accommodation centres, that will at least provide a prima facie basis for a judicial review of the original decision. It is a different thing for the monitor to conclude on the merits and for a judge to conclude on whether the Home Secretary's view was reasonable. We have always accepted that the reasonableness test is a harsher test than the merits test. In other words, the monitor might conclude that the place was not a good one. Yet a judge might take the view that the Home Secretary, in reaching the opposite conclusion, was reasonable. We accept that.
	In fact, the Home Secretary is replicating the effect of that which the Minister of State said was impossible to replicate and which the Government would never accept replication of, either the day before yesterday or yesterday. The circumstances of the Conservative party are such that I have lost track of time in the past 48 hours.
	Finally, I have a request. It is that following the passage of the amendment—I shall be asking my right hon. and hon. Friends not to oppose it, and similarly my noble Friends in the other place—and therefore the Bill, I hope that we shall move forward and discover what is likely to lead to the rapid processing of claims. I believe that that is the aim of everyone in the House. The Home Secretary made that clear in his remarks. It is certainly the aim of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) and of every Member who has spoken in these debates.
	That processing will be better for asylum seekers who have gone through dreadful circumstances and are refugees. It will be better for those who are economic migrants who are seeking to use the system. If they are to be refused, it is better that they should be refused sooner rather than later. It will be better by far for those of our electors who are concerned about the abuse of the system. Finally, it will be better by an enormous proportion for the Home Secretary and his hard-pressed officials if they are not searching round the country for people who have taken a long time to process. It is our joint aim to process fast, fairly and well
	I hope that the Home Secretary will look again at something that we have said throughout these debates and which does not reflect on the proposed legislation. As he rightly said, it reflects on the administration of the process, which is the be-all and end-all, however good the legislation. I refer to the human reality that underlies the current chaos. It is that no one of us in the House will be placed in the current position of the decision makers, who are asked to make decisions about people from a dizzying array of different places at great speed, through days and, in some instances, through early evenings. That is done on the basis of abstracts. Thank goodness, as a result of amendments, the abstracts will come under the guidance of independent advice.
	None of us, if we were decision makers, could possibly make accurate and compelling decisions about a person from Somalia at 9 o'clock, from Bosnia at 10 o'clock and from Zimbabwe at 11 o'clock. In human terms, that is not doable. I hope and pray for the Home Secretary's sake as much as ours and for the sake of all those who are involved in the process that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider how it can be so arranged that within the accommodation centres, and more generally outside them before they become the norm, decision makers are asked to make decisions in respect of matters that they actually know about because they relate only to a particular place with which they have a genuine familiarity. That is the crux of turning the system back from a nightmare into a process that operates.

Neil Gerrard: When my right hon. Friend spoke about Hampstead liberals, I hope that he did not have me in mind. If he did, he may be setting out to ruin my reputation. I warmly welcome what he said about administration, which is important, but it is not the key issue of this debate.
	I take a rather cynical view of the length of time that we have spent on the question of accommodation centres. I do not consider it an unimportant question, and the principle about education was an important one, but other parts of the Bill, such as those that will change the support system for in-country applicants and the significant changes to appeals, have not had the attention that they deserve. We would not have spent so long on accommodation centres if none of the sites proposed had been in Tory constituencies—in fact, I doubt that we would have been here this afternoon. I see some heads shaking, but it will be interesting to see what the reactions are when the trials go ahead.
	It is a pity that we have spent so long on what is not the most important part of the Bill. The other evening, not a single Back Bencher was able to speak on the vital issue of cutting off support to, potentially, thousands of asylum seekers, because of the way in which the timetable operated.
	I none the less welcome an amendment that gives a role to the monitor and clarifies the issues that he can take into account. It recognises that different asylum seekers will be in different situations. Asylum seekers are not a homogeneous group. The monitor will be able to consider whether people are being placed into accommodation centres in a way that suits their individual needs. I do not know how far it will be possible for him to do that for individuals, rather than looking at the broader picture, but the wording of the amendment suggests that he may be able to examine in some detail whether people were being placed appropriately, relative to their needs.
	I shall ask two or three specific questions, and I hope that if my right hon. Friend does not have time to answer in detail now, he will be able to put the answers in writing to me later. In the context of location and need, I do not understand why an urban location is seen as suitable for a trial of smaller centres for single people only, but not as somewhere where families might be placed, where, irrespective of the issue of education, children might benefit from community links. What is being proposed seems at odds with that idea.
	I want to ask about where people who make Xlate" applications will be placed, and whether location and need will match. I assume that in general, people who make late applications—that is the term used in the Bill—will be in a situation different from that of somebody newly arrived. Obviously, such people will have been living somewhere within the UK already, but presumably they may still be offered places in accommodation centres. If such a person said that they intended to refuse a placement because the location was unsuitable and did not meet their needs, would that have any implications for the decision on whether their late claim for support would be considered?
	In the previous debate we had no opportunity to consider the terms of the decision on late application, so it would help if at some point, if he cannot do so this afternoon, the Home Secretary set out some of the criteria, and told us about any codes of guidance that may be used in making that critical decision.

David Blunkett: I promise that we will write to my hon. Friend with answers to his questions, but I make it clear now that the in-country claim—the late claim—does not disqualify people from having their asylum claim tested.

Neil Gerrard: I fully appreciate that, but the arrangement introduces a new hurdle before people can qualify for support and accommodation, does it not? Rather than there being only the one hurdle, of proof of destitution, to clear, there will be a second hurdle—whether the application has been made in time. Presumably, unless the timing hurdle is cleared the question of support, and the test of destitution, will not arise. It would be helpful if we could be given more detail about that, because in the previous debate there was no opportunity to discuss it.
	I have another question about need in connection with late applications. One of the categories of people who will still be supported even if they make a late application is defined in the Bill as people with special needs. I assume that if someone has a special need, the location of their accommodation could be critical. Would factors such as the availability of specialist health care be considered? I assume that if an applicant were HIV-positive and would therefore require specialist help, or someone had mental health needs, those special needs would be taken into consideration when determining the location.
	It would help us to get a clearer picture if the Secretary of State spelled out some details; again, he can do this later if there is not time this afternoon. This will affect us all when we have to deal with individuals who come to see us because they have been refused support, and it will help if we understand more clearly what Xspecial needs" means, what conditions will be treated as special needs, and how that will affect the location of any accommodation centre in which people may be placed.
	We should welcome the change to establishing a monitor with wider powers, and I echo the comments about getting the monitor in place sooner, rather than later. It would also be helpful to know whether there is scope for individuals who feel that they have been located somewhere unsuitable for their needs to ask the monitor to consider their case.

Simon Hughes: I thank the Home Secretary for his tone, and for the way in which he introduced what I anticipate is this House's last debate on the Bill. Quite properly, it has occupied many of us for a considerable time in recent months, and I make no criticism of the time spent on such matters. In fact, there is much agreement among us, as there was in respect of many elements of the original Bill, such as nationality law reform. The view was correctly reflected that we spent a disproportionate amount of time on accommodation centres, compared with other parts of the Bill.
	The Home Secretary, however, was a bit mischievous, as he often is. He said that he is always open to persuasion, and that he responds to arguments not of opposition and rudeness, but of persuasion. I do not doubt that, but it always helps, of course, if one has been persuaded because part of Parliament blocked one's own suggestions. One of the great consolations of a two-Chamber Parliament is that it provides better scrutiny than a one-Chamber Parliament. A paradox about which the Home Secretary and I doubtless share a view is that it is in the unelected Chamber that Labour's share of the vote is much closer to its share of the vote in the country at the last election. It has 28 per cent.—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I please remind the hon. Gentleman of the limits of the debate on this amendment?

Simon Hughes: I shall try to keep very close to those limits, Madam Deputy Speaker. Labour's share of the vote in the unelected Chamber reflects its election result much more accurately than does its share of the vote in this Chamber, whatever the differences between us. The House of Lords has been able fairly regularly to say to the Government, XNo, you cannot go down that road." The issue of accommodation centres was, as recently as yesterday, an example of that.
	This exercise has already produced many changes on accommodation centres, four of which have been welcomed, and one of which gave rise to today's opportunity. A monitor of accommodation centres was not proposed at the beginning of our deliberations on the Bill. Because we now have a monitor, the Government were able to use that new institution and individual to come to the rescue today. We welcome that, and the fact that persuasion and a bit of political pressure has led not only to a monitor, but to a normal time limit of six months, which even the Government now want to reduce. Legal advice will also be provided, and we know who the dependants are, so a lot of progress has been made.
	As the Home Secretary knows, my colleagues and I have argued from the beginning for some form of reception centres. We entirely share the view that the more that we can speed up processing of claims, the better the system will be for all concerned, compatible with justly looking at them all. As I have said before, there is no theology concerning size or location. However, according to all the advice, and to the instincts of those of us on the Liberal Democrat Benches, centres of 750 people and above are much more like camps than accommodation centres. If we place such people away from the services that they need to be linked to, we are also not providing them with the best service.
	My final important point about the change is that there is a good case for having people together, with services that are close to each other. As the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) said, there is a very good case for trying to make life easier by getting officials who know about a particular part of the world to deal with those who come from there. My understanding is that that is the intended use for Oakington after the Bill is passed. Certain groups of people, perhaps those from EU applicant countries, will go there. I hope that we are all united in saying that if that is the argument we should make it, and should not let it by implication—not in this House, but elsewhere—be acceptable that asylum seekers are to be dealt with only in places where they are out of sight and, therefore, out of mind, in the way that lepers and mentally ill people were treated in the past. That is not the approach to take. We have an international obligation to look after people and we should do so.
	We accept that the Government's amendments are a substantial improvement on the view that they have taken before, in that some scrutiny will take place. I add my voice to the point made by the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), and by the right hon. Member for West Dorset from the Conservative Front Bench, that the monitor should be requested to consider the proposals in advance. That is the logical approach. It is no good spending time on planning, design or planning applications unless the monitor says that the location is good. I hope that that is what will happen in practice. It would be helpful if the Home Secretary could confirm at the first available opportunity that from now on all the sites that he may have in mind—large or small, mixed or single sex, for families or single people—will be the subject of prior consultation with the Local Government Association, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the equivalent organisations in Wales and Northern Ireland, if the Government have those places in mind.
	We would have preferred the original wording, under which the decisions would have been open to judicial scrutiny and we could have been satisfied that a particular location was suitable. That was not possible, so we would have preferred the wording added by the other place last night, which provided that the Home Secretary should have regard to the needs of the people to be accommodated. We may not win that argument either, although we will vote for the Lords amendment. However, I have talked to my colleagues in the other place and they accept that if the Government prevail in the House this afternoon, they will not further obstruct the passage of the Bill and it will pass into law before the end of the Session.
	The Liberal Democrats have sought to put their case on the Bill, and we therefore divided the House nine times on Tuesday. We were grateful to colleagues from all parties for joining us on many of those occasions. The last three attempts at legislation in this area have not been hugely successful. We hope that this Bill will be more successful, but not everything will be right. Our job is to be vigilant at local government level, Government level and Parliament level, and to take up matters with Ministers if we are not doing the right job by asylum seekers. We must seek to change the things that turn out to be wrong.
	In dealing with those who come to Britain seeking asylum, humanity and decency are as important as efficiency. Our international reputation is as much affected by how we treat the strangers at our gates as it is by how we treat our own. That is why this has been an important debate. We are glad to have been able to influence the Government to make significant changes so that the Bill is now in much better form than when we started.

Glenda Jackson: We have little time and I know that other hon. Members wish to participate. I am also mindful of your strictures, Madam Deputy Speaker, on entering the no-go area of the separate education of refugees' children and of the sensibilities of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to a too passionate advocation, using certain adjectives, of deeply held feelings in my constituency.
	I took some hope from what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said about the system. He said that the Government would concentrate on making it firm, fast or fair, and acknowledged that it is none of those things at present, despite the claims that have been made.
	I shall come to the question of location in a moment, but first I shall deal with accommodation centres. Running them will require lots of money and people, and they will take no small period of time to bring into being. They will deal with a comparatively small number of asylum seekers, compared with the numbers already in this country and the numbers who will arrive before the centres open.
	When I speak about the failures in the system, I mean no criticism of the incredibly dedicated and hard-working people in the IND. The right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) spoke pertinently about the decisions that they have to make every day. The IND requires additional support, finance and staff. The system also needs to be streamlined, so that staff do not have to deal with so many cases at the same time. Often those cases are at different stages of processing. I hope that the Government are looking at that matter now, as it is no exaggeration to say that many people—my constituents among them—have been waiting an unconscionable time for their cases to be prosecuted.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is going somewhat wide of the amendment.

Glenda Jackson: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I turn now to the location of the accommodation centres. The proposal is that the numbers involved will be much smaller than first advocated, and that the centres will deal only with single men. I do not expect my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to answer now, but I should be grateful if he would write to me with answers to the questions that I want to ask.
	What will be the age range of men in accommodation centres? In my constituency, it is not unusual for a member of a family to arrive in this country who is then followed by the rest of the family at a later date. A single man coming into this country may not understand that the word Xsingle" in this context means unmarried, in our lexicon. If asked whether he is a single man, he may well say that he is, even though he has a wife—or a common law wife—and children. What will happen if his family succeeds in gaining entry to this country? Would that man have to stay in the accommodation centre? Where would the rest of his family go? When the monitors assess locations, will they also assess the changes that the presence of asylum seekers undoubtedly cause?
	I am also worried about the facilities that will be provided in the accommodation centres. We have heard about the need for the centres to provide everything that asylum seekers might need. However, concerns have been expressed about the proper provision of health services. I shall not go down the road of asking whether every school in the country has its full complement of teachers, but serious questions remain—for instance, about the services provided by members of the legal profession into processing asylum cases. It seems to me that there will be an unavoidable conflict between what will be provided in the areas where the accommodation centres will be located, what will be provided for the centres, and what will be provided to improve the system that is provided by the IND.
	The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) spoke about the image that this country will present when we make clear our approach to people fleeing from a justified fear of persecution. I agree with what he said, and believe that this country will retain its reputation for offering asylum to people who are frail and often very vulnerable. It is surely an indication that a country is civilised when most of its people want asylum seekers to be treated speedily and effectively.

Tony Baldry: On Second Reading, I said that everyone in the House must share the responsibility of trying to get this legislation right. As a consequence of the work that Parliament has done—by persevering throughout the passage of the Bill, with the help of the House of Lords—the legislation is substantially better. We have an independent monitor for accommodation centres, which was not included in the Bill to start with.
	Today, the Home Secretary announced a substantial concession, because the monitor will effectively be able to determine whether a location meets the needs of asylum seekers. Realistically, before any accommodation centre can be built, the Home Office will have to announce a proposed location and the monitor of accommodation centres will have the opportunity to hear views on whether that location would prevent any of the needs of the proposed residents from being met. In so doing, the monitor will obviously want to take evidence not only from local people but from all the organisations that wrote to the Home Secretary on 3 May—the Refugee Council, Immigration Advisory Service, National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, Commission for Racial Equality, and others.
	As I am sure the Home Secretary will appreciate, one reason why the House of Lords so persistently returned the Bill to this House—in particular, this part of the Bill—was that the Government had not found a single supporter among the organisations most concerned about the welfare of refugees. In the letter of 3 May and subsequently, every organisation that was concerned about the welfare of refugees opposed the suggestion that accommodation centres should be large and in rural locations.
	In the proposed amendment—the concession that the Government are making—the Home Secretary is giving all organisations the opportunity to express their concerns rationally to the independent monitor, supporting them with such evidence as they have. I should have thought, therefore, that it must be in everyone's interests, not least the Treasury, for the right hon. Gentleman to announce as soon as it is convenient that he is going to postpone the planning applications for Bicester and the proposed site in Nottinghamshire until the independent monitor has had the opportunity to consider those locations. Otherwise, the planning application will go ahead and it will involve much public spending—not only for the Home Office, but for the local authorities concerned. That could result in a ludicrous situation—all that money might be spent and then the independent monitor of accommodation centres might be of the opinion that the location would not meet certain needs of the asylum seekers.

David Blunkett: I do not want to mislead the hon. Gentleman. I spoke to him before we came into the Chamber and I reinforce what I told him then, which is that we will not be withdrawing the planning applications. We are talking about an assessment of need, not whether there is a need for accommodation centres in a particular location or setting. We ought to be absolutely clear about that.

Tony Baldry: I am grateful to the Home Secretary and the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration for their courtesy throughout our proceedings on the Bill. I understood very clearly what he said before I came into the Chamber, which is why I am making these points.
	Under the Bill, the independent monitor of accommodation centres will have to decide whether the location of any centre
	Xprevents a need of its residents from being met."
	I think that the courts will effectively construe Xa need" as any need. Therefore, if an independent monitor has to consider whether Xany need" can be properly met, that adjudication and decision would be far better taken before money is spent on a planning application for a proposed accommodation centre. If the Home Secretary wants to persevere with the two proposed sites at Bicester and just outside Nottingham, it would be better to refer that matter now or as soon as possible to the independent monitor of accommodation centres so that evidence can start to be taken from the various organisations that I have mentioned. I appreciate that the Home Secretary has had to reflect a lot over the past two days and I hope that he will reflect further upon this in the days to come, otherwise a considerable amount of public money could be wasted.
	I would like to thank Baroness Anelay, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) for all that they have done. This House and the other place have made this a substantially better Bill. I hope that it will now enable—
	It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings, Madam Deputy Speaker, put the Questions necessary for the disposal of of proceedings to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [5 November].

Question put, That the House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—
	The House divided: Ayes 248, Noes 38.

Question accordingly agreed to
	Lords amendment disagreed to.

Paul Tyler: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that it has been drawn to your attention that Whitehall was closed for a large percentage of the time when we were voting. It would seem from the figures that a large number of Conservative Members were unable to vote. I wonder whether the Serjeant at Arms has been able to indicate to you whether all right hon. and hon. Members who wished to vote were able to participate in the Division.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I was advised that Whitehall was closed, and therefore allowed additional time for hon. Members to reach the Lobbies. I am advised that Whitehall is now open.
	Amendments proposed: (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 17B.—[Mr. Kemp.]

Question put, That the amendments be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 251, Noes 37.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Sitting suspended, pursuant to order [29 October].
	On resuming—

Animal Health Bill

Lords Reasons for insisting on certain of their amendments to which the Commons have disagreed, considered.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have to acquaint the House that a message has been received from the House of Lords relating to the Animal Health Bill. A paper setting out the Lords Reasons for insisting on certain of their amendments is available in the Vote Office. There is also a separate paper containing the motions and amendments in lieu to be moved by the Government. Under the Order of 6 November, any message received from the Lords relating to that Bill must be considered forthwith.
	I remind the House that proceedings on the Lords message must be concluded in one hour from now.

Clause 6
	 — 
	Treatment: Power Of Entry

Lords Reason 14B.

Elliot Morley: I beg to move, That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment (a) in lieu, Lords Reason 22B, the Government motion to insist and Government amendment (a) thereto, Lords Reason 35B, the Government motion to insist and Government amendment (a) thereto and Lords Reason 65B, the Government motion to insist and Government amendment (a) thereto.

Elliot Morley: We held a detailed debate on the issuing of warrants, and I made it clear that we understood the arguments of Opposition Members and some of my hon. Friends, especially in Committee, on representations.
	I made it very clear that it was impossible for the Government to accept the Lords amendment because of the difficulties with legal precedents that it would create for the process of issuing warrants. However, I took the point made by Members from both Opposition parties and by my hon. Friends that we should give some reassurance to people who choose to make representations to the divisional veterinary manager. Their case might be accepted or rejected. I explained to the House that many hundreds of applications to the DVM in relation to contiguous culling and other issues had been accepted and exemptions had been made. However, it is not impossible that, for the purposes of disease control, the Department would apply for a magistrate's warrant to enter private property.
	I followed the debate in the other place, where a few people still seemed to be obsessed with the culling issue, so I must emphasise that the Bill is not just about culling, as I think this House accepts. There will be cases—as there have been in the past—where people will refuse access for serology and even for vaccination. I stress that point.
	In cases where representation to the DVM has been made and turned down, a magistrate's warrant is sought. I repeat again that the magistrate has an obligation to take into account the representation made by the Department and to grant a warrant for such application only if there is a reasonable case to do so. I am sure that magistrates will take that obligation seriously.

David Drew: During the last foot and mouth outbreak how many powers-of-entry cases did the Government lose?

Elliot Morley: I think that there were four cases and the Government lost two, although I am not sure that all of them involved powers of entry—there was a range of issues. I can give my hon. Friend the details. In fact, in one case that we lost, the premises were subsequently found to be infected.
	Our proposals would speed the process and ensure that people have opportunities to make representations to the DVM. As I pointed out, the magistrate's obligation is only to grant a warrant when there is a reasonable case to do so. The intention of the amendment was to allow the farmer to ensure that his or her side of the story is taken into account by the magistrate.
	We cannot concede the idea of having a High Court-type hearing in front of a magistrate because it is impossible to move one legal procedure to a magistrates legal procedure, and there would be all sorts of difficulties relating to precedent. However, what we propose is that the information that the Department will make available to the magistrate must include a statement on whether any representation has been made by the occupier of the land or premises to an inspector about the purpose for which the warrant is sought. First, the magistrate will need to know whether an objection has been made. Secondly, there will be a summary of any such representation.
	Obviously, the Department will put its side of the case in the application and say why it seeks a warrant, but it will also provide a summary of the objections made by the occupier of the land or premises, so that the magistrate can consider both sides of the argument in deciding whether to grant the warrant. Those are the principal points that Opposition Members made, and I understand them, so I am trying to respond in a way that reflects not only the legal process, but the concerns that have been expressed.

Andrew George: The Minister will understand that the primary reason why the amendment was tabled was to ensure that both sides of the story are fully presented to the magistrate. Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that the summary will be a fair representation of what the farmer or landowner has put to the DVM? Will the farmer or landowner have an opportunity to inspect that summary before it is forwarded to the magistrate?

Elliot Morley: Of course we will issue internal guidance on the details of the summary and the way that our Department, vets and DVM will proceed. Of course that internal guidance will be open to parliamentary scrutiny by asking parliamentary questions, and we have no reason to keep it secret.
	The arrangements must not be too bureaucratic and complicated, but there is a legal obligation on any member of the Department to be truthful and honest in his or her submission when applying for a warrant. Therefore, there is a legal obligation on the Department to ensure that the principal points are fairly and accurately represented in relation to the submissions that the farmer, occupier or landowner may make to the DVM, so I give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. Of course, the work of the Department will be open to normal parliamentary scrutiny.
	I return to the fact that I accept the point, which has been made on several occasions, that trust is an issue. We understand that and want to ensure that there can be trust in relation to what the Department is doing. In the end, we want to control disease effectively, minimise the impact on the livestock sector and, if there is a disease outbreak, control it while keeping the number of animals culled to a minimum and causing minimum disruption to the livestock industry, the countryside and the rural economy. That is our priority. That is why we are developing the contingency arrangements and the animal health and welfare strategy, all of which will be public documents and open for consultation and scrutiny in the parliamentary process. We very much welcome such participation; it is part of the trust- building process.
	I acknowledge the constructive role of all parties and parliamentary spokespeople in both Houses in relation to the quite significant changes made during the proceedings on the Bill, and we have tried to acknowledge the genuine concerns and perfectly reasonable points that have been made by my hon. Friends and Opposition Members. That is reflected in relation to these amendments.
	I very much hope that the House will agree to the motion and accept the amendments in the spirit in which they are offered to complete the passage of the Bill.

John Hayes: The Minister's gracious and generous approach is a healthy sign of the Government's recognition that the amendments made throughout the Bill's progress in the other place and the comments made in this Chamber were designed to be helpful. The amendments have been largely non-partisan, although they were of course pioneered principally by the Conservative party with help from Cross Benchers and the minor parties, including the Liberal Democrats. It is in that spirit that the Minister has come to the House with a helpful amendment to allow us to make progress.
	I shall, however, briefly rehearse why the matter is significant. I want to amplify the point acknowledged by the Minister, which is that warrants are important. Magistrates should make a balanced and reasonable judgment based on a full understanding on each side of the argument, so that the landowner or farmer knows that his case has been heard, and the magistrate can be confident that he has all the facts at his disposal before he issues a warrant. That is important because most of these warrants will result in the culling of healthy animals. Obviously, that will always be done for proper purposes, but we must remember that dramatic events will ensue from the process.
	Warrants are important also because they are emblematic of the trust mentioned by the Minister. Yesterday I repeatedly made the point that the trust of farmers and the industry in the Government's approach to important matters of animal health will be fundamental if we are to put together an effective strategy for dealing with these events cohesively. That trust was damaged by the foot and mouth outbreak.
	I understand why the problems arose and I know that the circumstances were not easy, and one could make several points in mitigation, but trust was damaged. In that knowledge, we have to proceed with great caution, and in a spirit of generosity and co-operation, to rebuild the trust that predicates the right approach to dealing with any future such problems. Warrants are the salient issue, and the House of Lords has made such a great issue of warrants because they are at the apex of the concerns about trust, partnership and the rebuilding of relationships.
	The issue boils down to people's ability to make their case to magistrates. The Government have said that the method suggested by the Lords is not legally possible. I am not qualified to make a judgment about the law, so we must take the Minister's statement at face value. We have been presented with a solution that is reasonable, although not perfect—the House would hardly expect me to say that it is perfect.
	I am also reassured by the Minister's response to the intervention by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George), in which he said that representations would, of necessity, be made in a balanced and fair manner. That clearly answers many of the points made by Baroness Byford, who, with Lord Plumb and others, has played a remarkable role in framing so much of the important content of the Bill alongside—I will not say ahead of—those in the Government, who have also done their best. In those circumstances, it would be inappropriate for Conservative Members not to acknowledge that considerable movement and the splendid victory on the part of all Members on this side of the House, who have, by the force of their persuasive argument, encouraged the Minister to offer this generous settlement.

Andrew George: Like the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), I appreciate the concession that the Minister has brought to the House, and the graciousness with which he has handled it. We have had a proper debate, which has resulted in effective scrutiny of the relevant clause of the Bill. Although the measure does not go as far as we would like, we have reached a satisfactory concessionary position, which at least takes us considerably further forward in respect of making sure that the two sides of the story are clearly and transparently presented to magistrates.

David Drew: May I pose one issue that worries me? If a warrant is issued, and, for whatever reason, the people concerned do not want the vaccination or cull, but a third party does want it, will they also be mentioned in the warrant, or will it be left to the divisional veterinary manager to take up their part?

Andrew George: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is directing his question through me to the Minister. I shall happily act as a conduit on this occasion if he so wishes. If he is thinking of an example in which a landowner takes a particular view, but a tenant farmer takes a different view, that matter needs to be resolved. Perhaps the Minister will ponder on that before I conclude.
	The Minister was gracious in acknowledging—the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings was almost as gracious, although he did not properly reflect this fact—that the concession under discussion is the result of amendments tabled by Liberal Democrats in another place. My noble Friend Lord Greaves has been particularly assiduous in pursuing this matter to a rightful, better and more positive conclusion than might otherwise have been the case. Some issues still need to be clarified, however, and I shall quickly refer to four.
	First, farmers need to know about their right to appeal to the DVM. Will the Minister make it clear—because it is not clear in the Bill—that when the farmer or landowner is informed of the intention to seek a warrant, a right of appeal is available to them at that stage? At the same time, will the Minister also address the question of what other information and transparency this process will be afforded? In particular, will it be made clear to the farmer or landowner what time scale is available in which to respond to any suggested application for warrant? What procedure must they follow, and in what form do they make that appeal? Will he ensure, too, that the procedure is clear and transparent?

John Hayes: I do not want to prolong the debate or test the patience of the House by continuing too long. The hon. Gentleman may be mindful of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) last night, however, and it is important to point out that, in these circumstances, a landowner or farmer will often be in some difficulties. They may be trapped on their farm, and bewildered and confused by what they face. It is particularly important in those circumstances that clear and comprehensible information is made available to them, and that they are given every support in making their case as the Minister has described.

Andrew George: The hon. Gentleman is right. I am sure that the Minister fully appreciates that much trauma and emotion is associated with the process. As throughout the Bill's passage, I know that he understands that clarity and transparency are essential, because farmers and landowners might not think quite as straight in such circumstances as they would do on other occasions. That is why they need to be helped through the process.
	Farmers must be clear about their rights, the time scale and the procedure to be used. The Minister dealt with my earlier question about whether the farmer would be assured that the summary statement made to the magistrate would be a fair reflection of the message that the farmer intended to send. Therefore, on the basis of the Minister's clear and reassuring response to questions, I again make it clear that we think this is a helpful concession that goes some way to addressing the genuine concerns that were properly articulated in yesterday's debate and in the debates in another place.

Richard Bacon: Following the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), far be it from me to be anything other than gracious. However, I want to consider two or three points briefly.
	The Minister said that Conservative Members appear to be obsessed with culling. That is not the case. We all recognise that the Bill is about many different issues. However, I merely point out that part 1 is entitled XSlaughter", so the issue is at the heart of the Bill. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to want to discuss that point in relation to the powers of entry, the misuse of which caused so much concern to farmers.
	My second point is about whether the warrants would entail a novel legal principle. A moment ago, I was reading Hansard and the Minister's response to my second intervention when I said that it would surely be possible to distinguish between different kinds of warrants issued for different purposes. His only answer was:
	XI am not a legal expert".—[Official Report, 6 November 2002; Vol. 392, c. 384.]
	Therefore, everything will depend on the quality of the legal advice that he receives from his departmental lawyers.

Elliot Morley: It is first class.

Richard Bacon: I am sure that it is first class, but the Ministry went around merrily slaughtering perfectly healthy animals without either a legal or scientific basis for doing so until the case of MAFF v. Upton. At that point, the court had the full scientific information before it and MAFF stopped doing what it was doing and did not contest the action any further. That suggested that it had been wrong all along. The Minister did not address that point yesterday.
	That brings me to my next point. The Minister is determined to avoid the creation of novel legal principles, but the creation of a situation in which the Government go into a magistrates court and effectively bat for both sides—they make the case for a warrant while carrying statements from the farmer saying why there should not be a warrant—will be nothing other than a novel legal principle. The Government will bat for both sides, but the farmer will not be allowed to act in his own interest or have a solicitor acting for him. That seems to be a novel principle.
	However, it would be wrong to be graceless. My hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings assures me that we have achieved a valuable victory, and if he is right, that can be due only to the work of the fine and noble Baroness Byford who is probably the heroine of the hour.

Elliot Morley: I am grateful for the comments of hon. Members. On the question raised by the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon), the important point about the warrants is the procedure under which they will be issued. The magistrate must consider whether the request is reasonable, whoever applies for a warrant, and must also take account of why someone should want to resist a warrant. We are going a little further by providing information to the magistrate, who has an obligation to take into account all the arguments when making the decision.
	In response to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), I very much hope that applying for a warrant will be an act of last resort—that it will not be common, a standard procedure or something that we would want in the normal course of any disease-control strategy. Sadly, as with a range of issues and not only those relating to disease control, there will always be times when we might need such a power, especially in disease control when facing a national emergency. We accept that this is a major issue, which is why the power should be used only as a last resort. It is important that we engage stakeholders in considering disease control and management in a way that minimises any need for such a measure. That is the Government's declared objective.

Bob Spink: Will the Minister clarify whether the magistrate would if he thought it necessary be able to offer a hearing to the farmer or tenant farmer against whom the warrant had been issued?

Elliot Morley: That was the intention of the original Lords amendment, but as a Government we cannot concede that. All our legal advice suggests that it would be unprecedented to allow, in effect, a court hearing in front of a magistrate. As we debated yesterday, if that concession were made, we would have to allow the individual time to find a solicitor to seek legal advice or secure legal aid. The time taken would expand and the situation would become so complex that it would negate the idea of moving quickly. I am trying to retain the facility to move quickly on disease control in an emergency while respecting people's right to put an alternative point of view. The procedure will be to make representations to the DVM, who can decide to support them. The next step would be to apply for a warrant—now with the guarantee of a written submission on the other side of the argument.
	It is true that when the Prime Minister met Cumbrian farmers during the last epidemic, they told him not that there was too much slaughter but that there was not enough and that culling needed to be speeded up. For whatever reason, people might argue that animals should be culled—I assume that that is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) was making—but the decision whether to do so must be taken only on veterinary grounds, and that depends on the veterinary and scientific advice at the time.
	We want to support alternative approaches as part of engaging the industry and relevant stakeholders in future contingency plans for a range of diseases, and in the longer term strategy on animal health and welfare. That is all part of building confidence and trust and involving the industry—giving it a say in the strategies and helping it to understand the reasons and arguments behind them. That must be a priority. I very much hope that the measures in the Bill will be of last resort.

Roger Williams: Does the Minister agree that it is essential that magistrates receive training in the exercise of these powers and duties? Although we all hope that the need to use them would never arise, if it did, there would be no time to instruct them on their nature.

Elliot Morley: Magistrates already receive training, and part of it is to take into account reasonableness.
	The hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) raised an important point about how farmers and landowners would become aware of the procedures. I reassure him that one of the changes that we have introduced as part of the lessons learned is that, should there be a decision to cull, the first thing that will be done is to send a note to the farmers concerned informing them of that fact and why the decision had been taken. We can include information on such procedures in those notes, so that they will be aware of their rights.
	The whole idea of the slaughter note, which is part of the slaughter protocol, is to explain why a measure is being applied. The need to explain in certain circumstances why culling may be necessary is an improvement and marks a step forward in communication. Even with the greater prominence of vaccination, which I welcome, we have to accept that it is likely that culling will be used for different reasons, depending on the epidemic and the advice given. We need to understand that.
	I thank my colleague, Lord Whitty, and my parliamentary colleagues for their contributions. I also thank my officials for their hard work. They have been very much involved in the Bill. I am also grateful for the guidance from the Chair on procedural matters.
	The Bill is not about looking back. I hope that its measures allow us to look forward to future disease control strategies, which I have no doubt will be very different from earlier strategies. There will be greater involvement in the process. There are new opportunities, new technologies, new methods of working, improved communications and better contingency arrangements for a range of risks that threaten the livestock industry. I hope that the Bill is seen not as a threat to the industry, but as part of a range of measures designed to engage it, to give people a say and, above all, to ensure that we have a first-class livestock industry equipped to deal with the various threats that it faces from a variety of sources.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Government amendments in lieu of subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.
	Sitting suspended, pursuant to order [29 October].
	On resuming—
	Message to attend the Lords Commissioners:
	The House went; and, having returned:

Royal Assent

Mr. Speaker: I have to acquaint the House that the House has been to the House of Peers, where a Commission under the Great Seal was read, authorising the Royal Assent to the following Acts:
	Copyright (Visually Impaired Persons) Act 2002
	Employee Share Schemes Act 2002
	Public Trustee (Liability and Fees) Act 2002
	Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002
	Private Hire Vehicles (Carriage of Guide Dogs etc.) Act 2002
	Adoption and Children Act 2002
	Commonwealth Act 2002
	Enterprise Act 2002
	Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002
	Animal Health Act 2002
	HSBC Investment Banking Act 2002
	Barclays Group Reorganisation Act 2002
	Milford Haven Port Authority Act 2002
	City of London (Ward Elections) Act 2002

Prorogation
	 — 
	Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech

Mr. Speaker: I have further to acquaint the House that the Lord High Chancellor, one of the Lord Commissioners, delivered Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament, in pursuance of Her Majesty's Command. For greater accuracy, I have obtained a copy and also directed that the terms of the speech be printed in the Journal of the House. Copies are being made available in the Vote Office.
	The Gracious Speech was as follows:

My Lords and Members of the House of Commons: My Government has taken action in support of economic stability and sound public finances, and has continued to increase investment in public services and tackle child poverty.
	Education is my Government's top priority. An Act has been passed to promote diversity, choice, innovation and higher standards in schools. The Act provides new opportunities for school partnerships, improved support for teachers, more options for tackling weak and failing schools and greater freedom for successful headteachers and governors.
	Legislation has been passed to reform health services and strengthen regulation of the health professions.
	An Act has been passed to increase powers against money laundering, establish a Criminal Assets Recovery Agency and make it easier to recover the proceeds of crime and drugs.
	Legislation has been passed to modernise and reform the police service and to establish a new complaints system.
	Legislation has been passed to reform and streamline the system for dealing with immigration and applications for asylum.
	Legislation has been passed to reform employment dispute resolution procedures and to introduce new employment rights, including measures to balance work and parental life.
	Legislation was also passed which introduced a new system of tax credits and a new pension credit for pensioners.
	An Act was passed to improve productivity and enterprise through reform of the competition, insolvency and consumer protection regimes.
	Draft legislation has been brought forward on a number of matters including on Communications, Local Government and Extradition.

MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

I thank you for the provision you have made for the work and dignity of the Crown and for the public service.

My Lords and Members of the House of Commons: In Northern Ireland, my Government continued to work closely with the political parties and the Irish Government to secure the full implementation of the Belfast Agreement.
	Acts have been passed to maintain the arrangements on decommissioning and to reform the criminal justice system, both part of the Belfast Agreement. Provision has been made for new measures to combat electoral fraud in Northern Ireland.
	My Government has continued to co-operate with the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in the interests of all of the people of the United Kingdom. A White Paper was published outlining proposals for devolution to the English regions.
	My Government invited Parliament to set up a joint committee of both Houses to enable Parliament to reach a view on the second phase of House of Lords reform. Legislation was passed to allow political parties to make positive moves to increase the representation of women in public life.
	An Act was passed to reform the system of land registration. Legislation was also passed reforming residential leasehold law and improving leaseholders' rights and to create commonhold.
	My Government brought forward legislation to make the age of entitlement for concessionary fares the same for men as it is for women.
	An Act has been passed to reform adoption law to make children's welfare paramount, encourage more adoption and strengthen regulation of overseas adoptions.
	Other important measures have been enacted.

My Lords and Members of the House of Commons: The Duke of Edinburgh and I were pleased to receive the state visit of the King and Queen of Jordan last November.
	We recall with pleasure our visits to Jamaica and New Zealand in February and our subsequent visit to Australia on the occasion of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. The Duke of Edinburgh and I were also delighted to pay a visit to Canada in October.
	Following the shocking events of 11 September, my Government has taken decisive action to help combat terrorism around the world and support the reconstruction of Afghanistan.
	My Government has continued to play a leading role in efforts to improve the competitiveness of Europe's economies and bring the European Union closer to its people. Legislation has been enacted enabling the United Kingdom to ratify the Treaty of Nice and implement decisions on the Union's future funding.
	My Government has played a key role in agreeing a timetable for enlargement of the European Union and in identifying practical ways to strengthen the Union's foreign and security policy, particularly its support for peace building in the Balkans.
	My Government has worked to strengthen NATO, equip it for the challenges of the future and develop its growing partnership with Russia.
	My Government has worked for a more effective global effort to reduce poverty, including initiatives on debt relief and HIV/AIDS, and has enacted legislation to strengthen the poverty focus to Britain's development work.
	My Government ratified the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change along with other EU partners, as well as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
	In the United Nations, the Commonwealth and other fora my Government has been active in promoting human rights and tackling the causes of conflict, including support for UN efforts in newly independent East Timor.
	My Government enacted legislation to grant British citizenship to British Overseas Territories citizens in qualifying territories.

My Lords and Members of the House of Commons: I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may attend you.
	A Commission was also read for proroguing this present Parliament, and the Lord Chancellor said:
	XMy Lords and Members of the House of Commons: by virtue of Her Majesty's Commission which has now been read, we do, in Her Majesty's name, and in obedience to Her Majesty's Commands, prorogue this Parliament to Wednesday the thirteenth day of this instant November, to be then here holden, and this Parliament is accordingly prorogued to Wednesday the thirteenth day of this instant November."
	End of the First Session (opened on 13 June 2001) of the Fifty-Third Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in the Fifty-First Year of the Reign of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second.